public inbox for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>
To: Kuyo Chang <kuyo.chang@mediatek.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
	Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
	Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>,
	AngeloGioacchino Del Regno
	<angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com>,
	jstultz <jstultz@google.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] sched/deadline: Fix fair_server runtime calculation formula
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2025 16:03:20 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <aFAkKGs5h6kfXYnO@jlelli-thinkpadt14gen4.remote.csb> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250614020524.631521-1-kuyo.chang@mediatek.com>

Hello,

On 14/06/25 10:04, Kuyo Chang wrote:
> From: kuyo chang <kuyo.chang@mediatek.com>
> 
> [Symptom]
> The calculation formula for fair_server runtime is based on
> Frequency/CPU scale-invariance.
> This will cause excessive RT latency (expect absolute time).
> 
> [Analysis]
> Consider the following case under a Big.LITTLE architecture:
> 
> Assume the runtime is : 50,000,000 ns, and FIE/CIE as below
> FIE: 100
> CIE:50
> First by FIE, the runtime is scaled to 50,000,000 * 100 >> 10 = 4,882,812
> Then by CIE, it is further scaled to 4,882,812 * 50 >> 10 = 238,418.
> 
> So it will scaled to 238,418 ns.
> 
> [Solution]
> The runtime for fair_server should be absolute time
> asis RT bandwidth control.
> Fix the runtime calculation formula for the fair_server.
> 
> Signed-off-by: kuyo chang <kuyo.chang@mediatek.com>
> ---

Right, I would agree we don't actually want to scale fair_server runtime
by frequency/capacity. Your change looks good to me.

Acked-by: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>

Thanks!
Juri



  parent reply	other threads:[~2025-06-16 16:38 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-06-14  2:04 [PATCH 1/1] sched/deadline: Fix fair_server runtime calculation formula Kuyo Chang
2025-06-14  2:35 ` John Stultz
2025-06-16 14:03 ` Juri Lelli [this message]
2025-06-17  8:55 ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-06-17 12:33   ` Juri Lelli
2025-06-17 14:14     ` Peter Zijlstra
2025-06-17 14:23       ` Juri Lelli
2025-06-17 14:41         ` Kuyo Chang (張建文)

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=aFAkKGs5h6kfXYnO@jlelli-thinkpadt14gen4.remote.csb \
    --to=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
    --cc=angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com \
    --cc=bsegall@google.com \
    --cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
    --cc=jstultz@google.com \
    --cc=kuyo.chang@mediatek.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=matthias.bgg@gmail.com \
    --cc=mgorman@suse.de \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
    --cc=vschneid@redhat.com \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox