From: Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>,
dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, patrick.bellasi@matbug.net,
lenb@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
valentin.schneider@arm.com, ionela.voinescu@arm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] Documentation/scheduler/schedutil.txt
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2020 09:27:24 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201120092724.GB2653684@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201120091904.6zvovj2yxjxtnq2x@vireshk-i7>
On Friday 20 Nov 2020 at 14:49:04 (+0530), Viresh Kumar wrote:
> This is unlikely to be an issue on systems where cpufreq policies are
> shared between multiple CPUs, because in those cases the policy
> utilization is computed as the maximum of the CPU utilization values
> over the whole policy and if that turns out to be low, reducing the
> frequency for the policy most likely is a good idea anyway.
Hmm, I'm not sure I agree with this actually. We may be migrating the
task to a different policy altogether. And even if we migrate to another
CPU in the current policy, the task util_avg may be small just because
it was packed with other tasks on a rq, which means it may not increase
the util of the destination rq by much.
ISTR Douglas' EM-based schedutil boosting series was addressing that at
some point, I'll go have a look back at that discussion...
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-11-20 9:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-11-20 7:55 [RFC] Documentation/scheduler/schedutil.txt Peter Zijlstra
2020-11-20 8:56 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-11-20 9:13 ` Quentin Perret
2020-11-20 9:19 ` Viresh Kumar
2020-11-20 9:27 ` Quentin Perret [this message]
2020-11-23 9:30 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2020-11-23 10:05 ` Vincent Guittot
2020-11-23 11:27 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2020-11-23 13:42 ` Vincent Guittot
2020-11-23 18:39 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2020-11-20 11:45 ` Valentin Schneider
2020-11-20 14:37 ` Morten Rasmussen
2020-11-23 9:26 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2020-11-23 14:51 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-12-02 14:18 ` Mel Gorman
2020-12-02 15:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-12-02 16:45 ` Mel Gorman
2020-12-02 16:58 ` Peter Zijlstra
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=20201120092724.GB2653684@google.com \
--to=qperret@google.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=ionela.voinescu@arm.com \
--cc=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=morten.rasmussen@arm.com \
--cc=patrick.bellasi@matbug.net \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=valentin.schneider@arm.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