From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
To: Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
Claudio Scordino <claudio@evidence.eu.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Todd Kjos <tkjos@android.com>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] cpufreq: schedutil: rate limits for SCHED_DEADLINE
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 12:20:38 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2122625.mgU2W7rFO1@aspire.rjw.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJWu+orsBLQdjGJZKOnLP15M-aKboiDPVTQ2W+8tiHpgNLexMg@mail.gmail.com>
On Wednesday, March 14, 2018 2:27:53 AM CET Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 4:15 AM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
> > On 13-03-18, 11:35, Claudio Scordino wrote:
> >> When the SCHED_DEADLINE scheduling class increases the CPU utilization,
> >> we should not wait for the rate limit, otherwise we may miss some
> >> deadline.
> >>
> >> Tests using rt-app on Exynos5422 with up to 10 SCHED_DEADLINE tasks have
> >> shown reductions of even 10% of deadline misses with a negligible
> >> increase of energy consumption (measured through Baylibre Cape).
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Claudio Scordino <claudio@evidence.eu.com>
> >> Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
> >> Reviewed-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> >> CC: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> >> CC: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
> >> CC: Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
> >> CC: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
> >> CC: Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>
> >> CC: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>
> >> CC: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
> >> CC: Todd Kjos <tkjos@android.com>
> >> CC: Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>
> >> CC: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org
> >> CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> >> ---
> >> Changes from v3:
> >> - Specific routine renamed as ignore_dl_rate_limit()
> >
> > LGTM. Thanks.
>
> Nice! Thanks.
OK, the patch doesn't seem to depend on anything in -tip, so I'm going to
apply it.
Thanks!
prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-03-14 11:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-03-13 10:35 [PATCH v4] cpufreq: schedutil: rate limits for SCHED_DEADLINE Claudio Scordino
2018-03-13 11:15 ` Viresh Kumar
2018-03-14 1:27 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-03-14 11:20 ` Rafael J. Wysocki [this message]
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=2122625.mgU2W7rFO1@aspire.rjw.lan \
--to=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=claudio@evidence.eu.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=joelaf@google.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=morten.rasmussen@arm.com \
--cc=patrick.bellasi@arm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com \
--cc=tkjos@android.com \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
/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