From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1753453AbdEHHlQ (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Mon, 8 May 2017 03:41:16 -0400
Received: from mail.santannapisa.it ([193.205.80.98]:65393 "EHLO
        mail.santannapisa.it" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751982AbdEHHlP (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 8 May 2017 03:41:15 -0400
Date: Mon, 8 May 2017 09:41:08 +0200
From: Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@santannapisa.it>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>,
        Claudio Scordino <claudio@evidence.eu.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Tommaso Cucinotta <tommaso.cucinotta@sssup.it>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>,
        Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC v5 8/9] sched/deadline: base GRUB reclaiming on the
 inactive utilization
Message-ID: <20170508094108.384407f0@luca>
In-Reply-To: <20170327142633.nubm5saddpitylot@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <1490327582-4376-1-git-send-email-luca.abeni@santannapisa.it>
        <1490327582-4376-9-git-send-email-luca.abeni@santannapisa.it>
        <20170327142633.nubm5saddpitylot@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.13.2 (GTK+ 2.24.30; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Hi Peter,

sorry for the delay; anyway, I am working on fixing the patchset
according to the comments I received....

When working on one of your comments, I have a doubt:

On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 16:26:33 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
[...]
> 
> 
> #define BW_SHIFT	20
> #define BW_UNIT		(1 << BW_SHIFT)
> 
> static inline
> u64 grub_reclaim(u64 delta, struct rq *rq, struct sched_dl_entity
> *dl_se) {
> u64 u_inact = rq->dl.this_bw - rq->dl.running_bw; /* Utot -
> Uact */ u64 u_act;
[...]

I think introducing the BW_SHIFT and BW_UNIT defines can be more useful
in a previous patch (patch 4, where I introduce the "grub_reclaim()"
function, and use ">> 20" for the first time.

Moreover, the "20" magic number is already used in core.c... Should I
introduce the defines in sched/sched.h, and change the existing core.c
code too? Is it ok to embed this change in patch 4 (sched/deadline:
implement GRUB accounting), or should it go in a separate patch?


			Thanks,
				Luca

> 
> 	/*
>          * What we want to write is:
> 	 *
> 	 *   max(BW_UNIT - u_inact, dl_se->dl_bw)
> 	 *
> 	 * but we cannot do that since Utot can be larger than 1,
> 	 * which means u_inact can be larger than 1, which would
> 	 * have the above result in negative values.
> 	 */
> 	if (u_inact > (BW_UNIT - dl_se->dl_bw))
> 		u_act = dl_se->dl_bw;
> 	else
> 		u_act = BW_UNIT - u_inact;
> 
> 	return (delta * u_act) >> BW_SHIFT;
> }
> 
> Hmm?