lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Dec]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/4] sched: cpufreq: Keep track of cpufreq utilization update flags
Date
On Wednesday, December 20, 2017 2:28:26 PM CET Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 12:55:46PM +0000, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> > On 20-Dec 09:31, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > > Didn't juri have patches to make DL do something sane? But yes, I think
> > > those flags are part of the problem.
> >
> > He recently reposted them here:
> >
> > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20171204102325.5110-1-juri.lelli@redhat.com
>
> Yeah, just found them and actually munged them into my queue; did all
> the modifications you suggested too. Lets see if it comes apart.

Good, because I think that the Juri's patches should go in first.

Then we'll see what's still missing.

> > > > - From the utilization handler, we check runqueues of all three sched
> > > > classes to see if they have some work pending (this can be done
> > > > smartly by checking only RT first and skipping other checks if RT
> > > > has some work).
> > >
> > > No that's wrong. DL should provide a minimum required based on existing
> > > reservations, we can add the expected CFS average on top and request
> > > that.
> > >
> > > And for RT all we need to know is if current is of that class, otherwise
> > > we don't care.
> >
> > So, this:
> >
> > https://marc.info/?i=20171130114723.29210-3-patrick.bellasi%40arm.com
>
> Right, I was actually looking for those patches, but I'm searching
> backwards and hit upon Juri's patches first.
>
> > was actually going in this direction, although still working on top of
> > flags to not change the existing interface too much.
> >
> > IMO, the advantage of flags is that they are a sort-of "pro-active"
> > approach, where the scheduler notify sensible events to schedutil.
> > But keep adding flags seems to overkilling to me too.
> >
> > If we remove flags then we have to query the scheduler classes "on
> > demand"... but, as Peter suggests, once we have DL bits Juri posted,
> > the only issue if to know if an RT task is running.
> > This the patch above can be just good enough, with no flags at all and
> > with just a check for current being RT (or DL for the time being).
>
> Well, we still need flags for crap like IO-WAIT IIRC. That's sugov
> internal state and not something the scheduler actually already knows.

Not only sugov to be precise, but yes.

Thanks,
Rafael

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-12-20 15:50    [W:0.141 / U:0.404 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site