From: Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>,
dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, patrick.bellasi@matbug.net,
lenb@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
valentin.schneider@arm.com, ionela.voinescu@arm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] Documentation/scheduler/schedutil.txt
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2020 09:27:24 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201120092724.GB2653684@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201120091904.6zvovj2yxjxtnq2x@vireshk-i7>
On Friday 20 Nov 2020 at 14:49:04 (+0530), Viresh Kumar wrote:
> This is unlikely to be an issue on systems where cpufreq policies are
> shared between multiple CPUs, because in those cases the policy
> utilization is computed as the maximum of the CPU utilization values
> over the whole policy and if that turns out to be low, reducing the
> frequency for the policy most likely is a good idea anyway.
Hmm, I'm not sure I agree with this actually. We may be migrating the
task to a different policy altogether. And even if we migrate to another
CPU in the current policy, the task util_avg may be small just because
it was packed with other tasks on a rq, which means it may not increase
the util of the destination rq by much.
ISTR Douglas' EM-based schedutil boosting series was addressing that at
some point, I'll go have a look back at that discussion...
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-11-20 9:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-11-20 7:55 [RFC] Documentation/scheduler/schedutil.txt Peter Zijlstra
2020-11-20 8:56 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-11-20 9:13 ` Quentin Perret
2020-11-20 9:19 ` Viresh Kumar
2020-11-20 9:27 ` Quentin Perret [this message]
2020-11-23 9:30 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2020-11-23 10:05 ` Vincent Guittot
2020-11-23 11:27 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2020-11-23 13:42 ` Vincent Guittot
2020-11-23 18:39 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2020-11-20 11:45 ` Valentin Schneider
2020-11-20 14:37 ` Morten Rasmussen
2020-11-23 9:26 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2020-11-23 14:51 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-12-02 14:18 ` Mel Gorman
2020-12-02 15:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-12-02 16:45 ` Mel Gorman
2020-12-02 16:58 ` Peter Zijlstra
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20201120092724.GB2653684@google.com \
--to=qperret@google.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=ionela.voinescu@arm.com \
--cc=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=morten.rasmussen@arm.com \
--cc=patrick.bellasi@matbug.net \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=valentin.schneider@arm.com \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.