From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932512AbeE2IkQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 May 2018 04:40:16 -0400 Received: from usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:35128 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932197AbeE2IkN (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 May 2018 04:40:13 -0400 Date: Tue, 29 May 2018 09:40:09 +0100 From: Quentin Perret To: Vincent Guittot Cc: peterz@infradead.org, mingo@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rjw@rjwysocki.net, juri.lelli@redhat.com, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, Morten.Rasmussen@arm.com, viresh.kumar@linaro.org, valentin.schneider@arm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 05/10] cpufreq/schedutil: get max utilization Message-ID: <20180529084009.GE15173@e108498-lin.cambridge.arm.com> References: <1527253951-22709-1-git-send-email-vincent.guittot@linaro.org> <1527253951-22709-6-git-send-email-vincent.guittot@linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1527253951-22709-6-git-send-email-vincent.guittot@linaro.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.3 (2017-05-23) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Vincent, On Friday 25 May 2018 at 15:12:26 (+0200), Vincent Guittot wrote: > Now that we have both the dl class bandwidth requirement and the dl class > utilization, we can use the max of the 2 values when agregating the > utilization of the CPU. > > Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot > --- > kernel/sched/sched.h | 6 +++++- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/sched.h b/kernel/sched/sched.h > index 4526ba6..0eb07a8 100644 > --- a/kernel/sched/sched.h > +++ b/kernel/sched/sched.h > @@ -2194,7 +2194,11 @@ static inline void cpufreq_update_util(struct rq *rq, unsigned int flags) {} > #ifdef CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_GOV_SCHEDUTIL > static inline unsigned long cpu_util_dl(struct rq *rq) > { > - return (rq->dl.running_bw * SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE) >> BW_SHIFT; > + unsigned long util = (rq->dl.running_bw * SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE) >> BW_SHIFT; > + > + util = max_t(unsigned long, util, READ_ONCE(rq->avg_dl.util_avg)); Would it make sense to use a UTIL_EST version of that signal here ? I don't think that would make sense for the RT class with your patch-set since you only really use the blocked part of the signal for RT IIUC, but would that work for DL ? > + > + return util; > } > > static inline unsigned long cpu_util_cfs(struct rq *rq) > -- > 2.7.4 >