Re: [RFC PATCH v4 3/6] sched/cpufreq: Hook em_pd_get_higher_power() into get_next_freq()

[Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>]

On Friday 24 Jan 2020 at 14:37:04 (+0000), Quentin Perret wrote:
> 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

s/cpufreq_policy/cpufreq_governor

> 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