Re: [PATCH v5 05/10] cpufreq/schedutil: get max utilization

Vincent Guittot
2018-06-04T12:36:19Z

On 4 June 2018 at 12:12, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 04/06/18 09:14, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> On 4 June 2018 at 09:04, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com> wrote:
>> > Hi Vincent,
>> >
>> > On 04/06/18 08:41, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> >> On 1 June 2018 at 19:45, Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com> wrote:
>> >> > On Fri, Jun 01, 2018 at 03:53:07PM +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> >
>> > [...]
>> >
>> >> > IMO I feel its overkill to account dl_avg when we already have DL's running
>> >> > bandwidth we can use. I understand it may be too instanenous, but perhaps we
>> >>
>> >> We keep using dl bandwidth which is quite correct for dl needs but
>> >> doesn't reflect how it has disturbed other classes
>> >>
>> >> > can fix CFS's problems within CFS itself and not have to do this kind of
>> >> > extra external accounting ?
>> >
>> > I would also keep accounting for waiting time due to higher prio classes
>> > all inside CFS. My impression, when discussing it with you on IRC, was
>> > that we should be able to do that by not decaying cfs.util_avg when CFS
>> > is preempted (creating a new signal for it). Is not this enough?
>>
>> We don't just want to not decay a signal but increase the signal to
>> reflect the amount of preemption
>
> OK.
>
>> Then, we can't do that in a current signal. So you would like to add
>> another metrics in cfs_rq ?
>
> Since it's CFS related, I'd say it should fit in CFS.

It's dl and cfs as the goal is to track cfs preempted by dl
This means creating a new struct whereas some fields are unused in avg_dl struct
And duplicate some call to ___update_load_sum as we track avg_dl for
removing sched_rt_avg_update
and update_dl/rt_rq_load_avg are already call in fair.c for updating
blocked load

>
>> The place doesn't really matter to be honest in cfs_rq or in dl_rq but
>> you will not prevent to add call in dl class to start/stop the
>> accounting of the preemption
>>
>> >
>> > I feel we should try to keep cross-class accounting/interaction at a
>> > minimum.
>>
>> accounting for cross class preemption can't be done without
>> cross-class accounting
>
> Mmm, can't we distinguish in, say, pick_next_task_fair() if prev was of
> higher prio class and act accordingly?

we will not be able to make the difference between rt/dl/stop
preemption by using only pick_next_task_fair

Thanks

>
> Thanks,
>
> - Juri