[RFC PATCH 2/8] Documentation: arm: define DT cpu capacity bindings

Mark Rutland
2015-12-15T18:39:33Z

On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 06:47:20PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 15 December 2015 at 18:15, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 05:59:34PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> >> On 15 December 2015 at 17:41, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 04:23:18PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 03:57:37PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> >> >> > On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 03:46:51PM +0000, Juri Lelli wrote:
> >> >> > > On 15/12/15 15:32, Mark Rutland wrote:
> >> >> > > > On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 03:08:13PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> >> >> > > > > My expectation is that we just need good enough, not perfect, and that
> >> >> > > > > seems to match what Juri is saying about the expectation that most of
> >> >> > > > > the fine tuning is done via other knobs.
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > My expectation is that if a ballpark figure is good enough, it should be
> >> >> > > > possible to implement something trivial like bogomips / loop_per_jiffy
> >> >> > > > calculation.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > I didn't really followed that, so I might be wrong here, but isn't
> >> >> > > already happened a discussion about how we want/like to stop exposing
> >> >> > > bogomips info or rely on it for anything but in kernel delay loops?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I meant that we could have a benchmark of that level of complexity,
> >> >> > rather than those specific values.
> >> >>
> >> >> Or we could simply let user space use whatever benchmarks or hard-coded
> >> >> values it wants and set the capacity via sysfs (during boot). By
> >> >> default, the kernel would assume all CPUs equal.
> >> >
> >> > I assume that a userspace override would be available regardless of
> >> > whatever mechanism the kernel uses to determine relative
> >> > performance/effinciency.
> >>
> >> Don't you think that if we let a complete latitude to the userspace
> >> to set whatever it wants, it will be used to abuse the kernel (and the
> >> scheduler in particular ) and that this will finish in a real mess to
> >> understand what is wrong when a task is not placed where it should be.
> >
> > I'm not sure I follow what you mean by "abuse" here. Userspace currently
> > can force the scheduler to make sub-optimal decisions in a number of
> > ways, e.g.
> >
> > * Hot-unplugging the preferred CPUs
> > * Changing a task's affinity mask
> > * Setting the nice value of a task
> > * Using rlimits and/or cgroups
> > * Using a cpufreq governor
> > * Fork-bombing
>
> All these are parameters have a meaning (except the last one). By
> abusing i mean setting the capacity of the most powerful cpu to 1 for
> no good reason except to abuse the scheduler so the latter will not
> put that much tasks on it just because the current running use case
> is more efficient if the big core is not used.

Surely it's better to allow them to "abuse" the kernel in that manner
than to place otherwise insane values into a DT? Especially if they can
later change to a sane value?

For that particular case it's easy to hotplug out the big core, or to
set the affinity of tasks to avoid it.

Mark.