[lkml]   [2019]   [Oct]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] sched: rt: Make RT capacity aware
On Tue, 29 Oct 2019 at 13:46, Qais Yousef <> wrote:
> On 10/29/19 13:20, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > > > Making big cores the default CPUs for all RT tasks is not a minor
> > > > change and IMO locality should stay the default behavior when there is
> > > > no uclamp constraint
> > >
> > > How this is affecting locality? The task will always go to the big core, so it
> > > should be local.
> >
> > local with the waker
> > You will force rt task to run on big cluster although waker, data and
> > interrupts can be on little one.
> > So making big core as default is far from always being the best choice
> This is loaded with assumptions IMO. AFAICT we don't know what's the best
> choice.
> First, the value of uclamp.min is outside of the scope of this patch. Unless
> what you're saying is that when uclamp.min is 1024 then we should NOT choose a
> big cpu then there's no disagreement about what this patch do. If that's what
> you're objecting to please be more specific about how do you see this working
> instead.

My point is that this patch makes the big cores the default CPUs for
RT tasks which is far from being a minor change and far from being an
obvious default good choice

> If your objection is purely based on the choice of uclamp.min then while
> I agree that on modern systems the little cores are good enough for the
> majority of RT tasks in average Android systems. But I don't feel confident to
> reach this conclusion on low end systems where the little core doesn't have
> enough grunt in many cases. So I see the current default is adequate and the
> responsibility of further tweaking lies within the hands of the system admin.
> --
> Qais Yousef

 \ /
  Last update: 2019-10-29 13:56    [W:0.090 / U:0.108 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site