From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 06/14] sched/cpufreq: uclamp: add utilization clamping
 for RT tasks
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2018 16:41:56 +0100
Message-ID: <20180809154156.gdsx2vacjmp6p6dp@darkstar>
References: <20180806163946.28380-1-patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
 <20180806163946.28380-7-patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
 <20180807135403.s7jktvxmhycujeht@queper01-lin>
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: <20180807135403.s7jktvxmhycujeht@queper01-lin>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, "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@google.com>, Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>, Steve Muckle <smuckle@google.com>, Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org

On 07-Aug 14:54, Quentin Perret wrote:
> Hi Patrick,

Hi Quentin!

> On Monday 06 Aug 2018 at 17:39:38 (+0100), Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> > index a7affc729c25..bb25ef66c2d3 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> > @@ -200,6 +200,7 @@ static unsigned int get_next_freq(struct sugov_policy *sg_policy,
> >  static unsigned long sugov_get_util(struct sugov_cpu *sg_cpu)
> >  {
> >  	struct rq *rq = cpu_rq(sg_cpu->cpu);
> > +	unsigned long util_cfs, util_rt;
> >  	unsigned long util, irq, max;
> >  
> >  	sg_cpu->max = max = arch_scale_cpu_capacity(NULL, sg_cpu->cpu);
> 
> IIUC, not far below this you should still have something like:
> 
> 	if (rt_rq_is_runnable(&rq->rt))
> 		return max;

Do you mean that when RT tasks are RUNNABLE we still want to got to
MAX? Not sure to understand... since this patch is actually to clamp
the RT class...

> So you won't reach the actual clamping code at the end of the function
> when a RT task is runnable no?

... mmm... no... this patch is to clamp RT tasks... Am I missing
something?

> Also, I always had the feeling that the default for RT should be
> util_min == 1024, and then users could decide to lower the bar if they
> want to.

Mmm... good point! This would keep the policy unaltered for RT tasks.

I want to keep sched class specific code in uclamp at minimum, but
likely this should be achievable by just properly initializing the
task-specific util_min for RT tasks, if the original task has
UCLAM_NOT_VALID.

> For the specific case of RT, that feels more natural than
> applying a max util clamp IMO. What do you think ?

I'll look better into this for the next posting!

Cheers Patrick

-- 
#include <best/regards.h>

Patrick Bellasi