lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Dec]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 0/5] sched/fair: Task placement biasing using uclamp
From
Date
On 11/12/2019 12:38, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> Hi,
>
> While uclamp restrictions currently only impact schedutil's frequency
> selection, it would make sense to also let them impact CPU selection in
> asymmetric topologies. This would let us steer specific tasks towards
> certain CPU capacities regardless of their actual utilization - I give a
> few examples in patch 4.
>
> The first three patches are mainly cleanups, the meat of the thing is
> in patches 4 and 5.
>
> Note that this is in the same spirit as what Patrick had proposed for EAS
> on Android [1]
>
> [1]: https://android.googlesource.com/kernel/common/+/b61876ed122f816660fe49e0de1b7ee4891deaa2%5E%21

Reviewed-by: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
Tested-By: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>

Tested on Juno-r0 (Arm64) cpumask [0x3f] w/ big [0x06], LITTLE [0x39]
[orig cpu capacity big,LITTLE: 1024,446] and rt-app

4 periodic tasks runtime/period [800/16000], per task uclamp_min/max
[600,1024]

w/o uclamp: EAS puts the tasks on LITTLE CPUs [0x39]
w/ uclamp: EAS puts the tasks on big CPUs [0x06]

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-12-12 16:07    [W:0.072 / U:0.064 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site