lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jan]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [Patch v8 4/7] sched/fair: Enable periodic update of average thermal pressure
From
Date
On 27/01/2020 16:15, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 13:09, Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 24/01/2020 16:45, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>> On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 at 16:37, Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 17/01/2020 16:39, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 at 15:55, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 02:22:51PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 16:15, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>> The 'now' argument is one thing but why not:
>>>>
>>>> -int update_thermal_load_avg(u64 now, struct rq *rq, u64 capacity)
>>>> +int update_thermal_load_avg(u64 now, struct rq *rq)
>>>> {
>>>> + u64 capacity = arch_cpu_thermal_pressure(cpu_of(rq));
>>>> +
>>>> if (___update_load_sum(now, &rq->avg_thermal,
>>>>
>>>> This would make the call-sites __update_blocked_others() and
>>>> task_tick(_fair)() cleaner.
>>>
>>> I prefer to keep the capacity as argument. This is more aligned with
>>> others that provides the value of the signal to apply
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I guess the argument is not to pollute pelt.c. But it already contains
>>>
>>> you've got it. I don't want to pollute the pelt.c file with things not
>>> related to pelt but thermal as an example.
>>>
>>>> arch_scale_[freq|cpu]_capacity() for irq.
>>
>> But isn't arch_cpu_thermal_pressure() not exactly the same as
>> arch_scale_cpu_capacity() and arch_scale_freq_capacity()?
>>
>> All of them are defined by default within the scheduler code
>> [include/linux/sched/topology.h or kernel/sched/sched.h] and can be
>> overwritten by arch code with a fast implementation (e.g. returning a
>> per-cpu variable).
>>
>> So why is using arch_scale_freq_capacity() and arch_scale_cpu_capacity()
>> in update_irq_load_avg [kernel/sched/pelt.c] and update_rq_clock_pelt()
>
> As explained previously, update_irq_load_avg is an exception and not
> the example to follow. update_rt/dl_rq_load_avg are the example to
> follow and fixing update_irq_load_avg exception is on my todo list

There is already a v9 but I comment here so the thread stays intact.

I guess this thread leads to nowhere. For me the question is do we
review against existing code or some possible future changes? The
arguments didn't convince me so far.
But we're not talking functional issues here so I won't continue to push
for change on this one here.

>> [kernel/sched/pelt.h] OK but arch_cpu_thermal_pressure() in
>> update_thermal_load_avg() [kernel/sched/pelt.c] not?
>>
>> Shouldn't arch_cpu_thermal_pressure() not be called
>> arch_scale_thermal_capacity() to highlight the fact that those three
>
> Quoted from cover letter https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/1/14/1164:
> "
> v6->v7:
> - ...
> - Renamed arch_scale_thermal_capacity to arch_cpu_thermal_pressure
> as per review comments from Peter, Dietmar and Ionela.
> -...
>
> "

I went back to the v6 review. Peter originally asked for a better name
(or an additional comment) for arch_scale_thermal_capacity() because the
return value is not capacity.

So IMHO arch_scale_thermal_pressure() is a good name for keeping this
aligned w/ the other arch_scale_* functions and to address this review
comment.

arch_scale_cpu_capacity() - scale capacity by cpu
arch_scale_freq_capacity() - scale capacity by frequency
arch_scale_thermal_pressure() - scale pressure (1 - capacity) by thermal

[...]

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-01-29 16:42    [W:0.134 / U:0.144 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site