Re: [PATCH v3 01/14] sched/core: uclamp: extend sched_setattr to support utilization clamping

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

On 13/08/18 13:14, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> On 07-Aug 11:59, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Minor comments below.
> > 
> > On 06/08/18 17:39, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> > 
> > [...]
> > 
> > > + *
> > > + * Task Utilization Attributes
> > > + * ===========================
> > > + *
> > > + * A subset of sched_attr attributes allows to specify the utilization which
> > > + * should be expected by a task. These attributes allows to inform the
> >                                                        ^
> > 						     allow
> > 
> > > + * scheduler about the utilization boundaries within which is safe to schedule
> > 
> > Isn't all this more about providing hints than safety?
> 
> Yes, it's "just" hints... will rephrase to make it more clear.
> 
> > > + * the task. These utilization boundaries are valuable information to support
> > > + * scheduler decisions on both task placement and frequencies selection.
> > > + *
> > > + *  @sched_util_min	represents the minimum utilization
> > > + *  @sched_util_max	represents the maximum utilization
> > > + *
> > > + * Utilization is a value in the range [0..SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE] which
> > > + * represents the percentage of CPU time used by a task when running at the
> > > + * maximum frequency on the highest capacity CPU of the system. Thus, for
> > > + * example, a 20% utilization task is a task running for 2ms every 10ms.
> > > + *
> > > + * A task with a min utilization value bigger then 0 is more likely to be
> > > + * scheduled on a CPU which can provide that bandwidth.
> > > + * A task with a max utilization value smaller then 1024 is more likely to be
> > > + * scheduled on a CPU which do not provide more then the required bandwidth.
> > 
> > Isn't s/bandwidth/capacity/ here, above, and in general where you use
> > the term "bandwidth" more appropriate? I wonder if overloading this term
> > (w.r.t. how is used with DEADLINE) might create confusion. In this case
> > we are not providing any sort of guarantees, it's a hint.
> 
> Yes, you right... here we are not really granting any bandwidth but
> just "improving" the bandwidth provisioning by hinting the scheduler
> about a certain min/max capacity required.
> 
> The problem related to using capacity is that, from kernel space,
> capacity is defined as a static quantity/property of CPUs. Still, I

Looks like it's also more inline with EAS terminology (i.e., capacity
states).