From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/6] cpufreq: schedutil: fixes for flags updates
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2017 13:27:04 +0100
Message-ID: <20171222122704.GM18612@localhost.localdomain>
References: <20171130114723.29210-1-patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
 <20171220153029.dqrtjbyowhqdl56r@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20171220173814.GC22246@localhost.localdomain>
 <20171222100626.7g5yklspjofcp2we@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20171222110206.GA6414@e110439-lin>
 <20171222114618.mlbqdbagrbr7oert@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20171222120737.GA30968@e110439-lin>
 <20171222121954.x3vgj7s6infdox46@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20171222121954.x3vgj7s6infdox46@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>, Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>, Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>, Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>, Todd Kjos <tkjos@android.com>, Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>, Claudio Scordino <claudio@evidence.eu.com>, Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@santannapisa.it>
List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org

On 22/12/17 13:19, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 12:07:37PM +0000, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> > > I was thinking that since dl is a 'global' scheduler the reservation
> > > would be too and thus the freq just needs a single CPU to be observed;
> > 
> > AFAIU global is only the admission control (which is something worth a
> > thread by itself...) while the dl_se->dl_bw are aggregated into the
> > dl_rq->running_bw, which ultimately represents the DL bandwidth
> > required for just a CPU.
> 
> Oh urgh yes, forgot that.. then the dl freq stuff isn't strictly correct
> I think. But yes, that's another thread.
> 
> > > but I suppose there's nothing stopping anybody from splitting a clock
> > > domain down the middle scheduling wise. So yes, good point.
> > 
> > That makes sense... moreover, using the global utilization, we would
> > end up asking for capacities which cannot be provided by a single CPU.
> 
> Yes, but that _should_ not be a problem if you clock them all high
> enough. But this gets to be complicated real fast I think.
> 
> > > Blergh that'd make a mess of things again.
> > 
> > Actually, looking better at your patch: are we not just ok with that?
> > 
> > I mean, we don't need this check on idle_cpu since in
> > sugov_aggregate_util we already skip the util=sg_cpu->max in case of
> > !rq->rt.rt_nr_running, while we aggregate just CFS and DL requests.
> 
> Right, well, I don't actually have an environment to test this sanely,
> so someone will have to go play with the various variations and see what
> works.

Adding Claudio and Luca to the thread (as I don't have a testing
platform myself ATM). ;)