lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Aug]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 01/14] sched/core: uclamp: extend sched_setattr to support utilization clamping
On 07-Aug 11:59, Juri Lelli wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Minor comments below.
>
> On 06/08/18 17:39, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > + *
> > + * Task Utilization Attributes
> > + * ===========================
> > + *
> > + * A subset of sched_attr attributes allows to specify the utilization which
> > + * should be expected by a task. These attributes allows to inform the
> ^
> allow
>
> > + * scheduler about the utilization boundaries within which is safe to schedule
>
> Isn't all this more about providing hints than safety?

Yes, it's "just" hints... will rephrase to make it more clear.

> > + * the task. These utilization boundaries are valuable information to support
> > + * scheduler decisions on both task placement and frequencies selection.
> > + *
> > + * @sched_util_min represents the minimum utilization
> > + * @sched_util_max represents the maximum utilization
> > + *
> > + * Utilization is a value in the range [0..SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE] which
> > + * represents the percentage of CPU time used by a task when running at the
> > + * maximum frequency on the highest capacity CPU of the system. Thus, for
> > + * example, a 20% utilization task is a task running for 2ms every 10ms.
> > + *
> > + * A task with a min utilization value bigger then 0 is more likely to be
> > + * scheduled on a CPU which can provide that bandwidth.
> > + * A task with a max utilization value smaller then 1024 is more likely to be
> > + * scheduled on a CPU which do not provide more then the required bandwidth.
>
> Isn't s/bandwidth/capacity/ here, above, and in general where you use
> the term "bandwidth" more appropriate? I wonder if overloading this term
> (w.r.t. how is used with DEADLINE) might create confusion. In this case
> we are not providing any sort of guarantees, it's a hint.

Yes, you right... here we are not really granting any bandwidth but
just "improving" the bandwidth provisioning by hinting the scheduler
about a certain min/max capacity required.

The problem related to using capacity is that, from kernel space,
capacity is defined as a static quantity/property of CPUs. Still, I
think it makes sense to argue that util_{min,max} are hints on the
min/max capacity required for a task.

I'll update comments and text to avoid using bandwidth in favour of
capacity.

Cheers Patrick

--
#include <best/regards.h>

Patrick Bellasi

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-08-13 14:15    [W:0.065 / U:4.288 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site