From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] sched/fair: add util_est on top of PELT
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2018 20:15:07 +0100
Message-ID: <20180206191507.GU2295@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20180206144131.31233-1-patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
 <20180206144131.31233-2-patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
 <20180206155056.GF2269@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20180206183315.GG5739@e110439-lin>
 <20180206190900.GN2249@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:60858 "EHLO
        merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751574AbeBFUIz (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>); Tue, 6 Feb 2018 15:08:55 -0500
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180206190900.GN2249@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org
To: Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
Cc: 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>, Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>, Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>, Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>, Todd Kjos <tkjos@android.com>, Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>, Steve Muckle <smuckle@google.com>

On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 08:09:00PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 06:33:15PM +0000, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> 
> > Good point, I was actually expecting this question and I should have
> > added it to the cover letter, sorry.
> > 
> > The reasoning was: the task's estimated utilization is defined as the
> > max between PELT and the "estimation". Where "estimation" is
> > the max between EWMA and the last ENQUEUED utilization.
> > 
> > Thus I was envisioning these two calls:
> > 
> >    _task_util_est := max(EWMA, ENQUEUED)
> >     task_util_est := max(util_avg, _task_util_est)
> > 
> > but since now we have clients only for the first API, I've not added
> > the second one. Still I would prefer to keep the "_" to make it clear
> > that's and util_est's internal signal, not the actual task's estimated
> > utilization.
> > 
> > Does it make sense?
> > 
> > Do you prefer I just remove the "_" and we will refactor it once we
> > should add a customer for the proper task's util_est?
> 
> Hurm... I was thinking:
> 
>   task_util_est := max(util_avg, EWMA)
> 
> But the above mixes ENQUEUED into it.. *confused*.

So mixing in ENQUEUED seems to give it an upward BIAS if the very last
activation was 'high'. Thereby improving ramp-up.

That seems to be what we want.. might be nice to have that in a comment
;-)

I'm thinking we want a different name for max(EWMA, ENQUEUED) though,
but I really can't come up with a sensible suggestion, which I suppose,
is why you stuck an underscore on it and went on with things.