lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jan]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH v4 3/6] sched/cpufreq: Hook em_pd_get_higher_power() into get_next_freq()
On Thursday 23 Jan 2020 at 17:52:53 (+0000), Douglas Raillard wrote:
> We can't really move the call to em_pd_get_higher_freq() into
> cpufreq_driver_resolve_freq() since that's a schedutil-specific feature,
> and we would loose the !sg_policy->need_freq_update optimization.

Depends how you do it. You could add a new method to cpufreq_policy that
is defined only for sugov or something along those lines. And you'd call
that instead of cpufreq_frequency_table_target() when that makes sense.

> Maybe we can add a flag to cpufreq_driver_resolve_freq() that promises
> that the frequency is already a valid one. We have to be careful though,
> since a number of things can make that untrue:
> - em_pd_get_higher_freq() will return the passed freq verbatim if it's
> higher than the max freq, so em_pd_get_higher_freq() will have to set
> the flag itself in case that logic changes.
> - policy limits can change the value
> - future things could tinker with the freq and forget to reset the flag.
>
> If you think it's worth it I can make these changes.

The thing is, not only with the current patch we end up iterating the
frequencies twice for nothing, but also I think it'd be interesting to
use the EM for consistency with EAS. It'd be nice to use the same data
structure for the predictions we do in compute_energy() and for the
actual request.

Thoughts ?

Quentin

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-01-24 15:38    [W:0.100 / U:5.068 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site