From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: peterz@infradead.org (Peter Zijlstra)
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 16:05:51 +0100
Subject: [RFC PATCH v2 0/4] CPUs capacity information for heterogeneous
 systems
In-Reply-To: <1452262172-31861-1-git-send-email-juri.lelli@arm.com>
References: <1452262172-31861-1-git-send-email-juri.lelli@arm.com>
Message-ID: <20160119150551.GI6344@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 02:09:28PM +0000, Juri Lelli wrote:
> Second version of this RFC proposes an alternative solution (w.r.t. v1) to the
> problem of how do we init CPUs original capacity: we run a bogus benchmark (for
> this RFC I simple stole int_sqrt from lib/ and I run that in a loop to perform
> some integer computation, I'm sure there are better benchmarks around) on the
> first cpu of each frequency domain (assuming no u-arch differences inside
> domains), measure time to complete a fixed number of iterations and then
> normalize results to SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE (1024). I didn't spend much time in
> polishing this up or thinking about a better benchmark, as this is an RFC and
> I'd like discussion happening before we make this solution better
> working/looking. However, surprisingly, results are not that bad already:

>  2. Dynamic profiling at boot (v2)
> 
>     pros: - does not require a standardized definition of capacity
>           - cannot be incorrectly tuned (once benchmark is fixed)
>           - does not require user/integrator work
> 
>     cons: - not easy to come up with a clean solution, as it seems interaction
>             with several subsystems (e.g., cpufreq) is required
>           - not easy to agree upon a single benchmark (that has to be both
>             representative and simple enough to run at boot)
>           - numbers might (and do) vary from boot to boot

This last point is a total pain for benchmarking, it means nothing is
every reproducible.

Therefore, I would always augment the above (2) with the below (3), such
that you can overwrite the results with a known stable set of numbers:

>  3. sysfs (v1)
> 
>     pros: - clean and super easy to implement
>           - values don't require to be physical properties, defining them is
>             probably easier
> 
>     cons: - CPUs capacity have to be provided after boot (by some init script?)
>           - API is modified, still some discussion/review is needed
>           - values can still be incorrectly used for runtime tuning purposes