Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/8] sched/cpufreq_schedutil: make use of DEADLINE utilization signal

[Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>]

On 05/12/17 16:34, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> On 05-Dec 16:24, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > On 05/12/17 15:09, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> > > > +	/*
> > > > +	 * Ideally we would like to set util_dl as min/guaranteed freq and
> > > > +	 * util_cfs + util_dl as requested freq. However, cpufreq is not yet
> > > > +	 * ready for such an interface. So, we only do the latter for now.
> > > > +	 */
> > > 
> > > Maybe I don't completely get the above comment, but to me it is not
> > > really required.
> > > 
> > > When you say that "util_dl" should be set to a min/guaranteed freq
> > > are you not actually talking about a DL implementation detail?
> > > 
> > > From the cpufreq standpoint instead, we should always set a capacity
> > > which can accommodate util_dl + util_cfs.
> > 
> > It's more for platforms which supports such combination of values for
> > frequency requests (CPPC like, AFAIU). The idea being that util_dl is
> > what the system has to always guarantee, but it could go up to the sum
> > if feasible.
> 
> I see, you mean for systems where you can specify both values at the
> same time, i.e.
> - please give me util_dl...
> - ... but if you have more beer, I would like util_dl + util_cfs
> 
> However, I'm not an expert, on those systems can we really set a
> minimum guaranteed performance level?

This is my current understanding. Never played with such platforms
myself. :)

Best,

- Juri