From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
To: Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>,
Steve Muckle <smuckle@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] sched/cpufreq: always consider blocked FAIR utilization
Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 12:46:55 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1882135.N2Fi74R5Qz@aspire.rjw.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180530165010.GK30654@e110439-lin>
On Wednesday, May 30, 2018 6:50:10 PM CEST Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> On 27-May 11:50, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 4:10 PM, Patrick Bellasi
> > <patrick.bellasi@arm.com> wrote:
> > > Since the refactoring introduced by:
> > >
> > > commit 8f111bc357aa ("cpufreq/schedutil: Rewrite CPUFREQ_RT support")
> > >
> > > we aggregate FAIR utilization only if this class has runnable tasks.
> > > This was mainly due to avoid the risk to stay on an high frequency just
> > > because of the blocked utilization of a CPU not being properly decayed
> > > while the CPU was idle.
> > >
> > > However, since:
> > >
> > > commit 31e77c93e432 ("sched/fair: Update blocked load when newly idle")
> > >
> > > the FAIR blocked utilization is properly decayed also for IDLE CPUs.
> > >
> > > This allows us to use the FAIR blocked utilization as a safe mechanism
> > > to gracefully reduce the frequency only if no FAIR tasks show up on a
> > > CPU for a reasonable period of time.
> > >
> > > Moreover, we also reduce the frequency drops of CPUs running periodic
> > > tasks which, depending on the task periodicity and the time required
> > > for a frequency switch, was increasing the chances to introduce some
> > > undesirable performance variations.
> > >
> > > Reported-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
> > > Signed-off-by: Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
> > > Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
> > > Acked-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
> > > Tested-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
> > > Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
> > > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> > > Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> > > Cc: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
> > > Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
> > > Cc: Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>
> > > Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> > > Cc: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> >
> > Or please let me know if you want me to apply this one.
>
> Hi Rafael, seems this patch has already been applied in tip/sched/core.
> However is missing your tag above. :/
That's OK.
I just wanted to let people know my opinion. :-)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-05-31 10:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-05-24 14:10 [PATCH v3 0/2] Improve schedutil integration for FAIR tasks Patrick Bellasi
2018-05-24 14:10 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] sched/cpufreq: always consider blocked FAIR utilization Patrick Bellasi
2018-05-25 9:47 ` [tip:sched/core] sched/cpufreq: Modify aggregate utilization to always include " tip-bot for Patrick Bellasi
2018-05-27 9:50 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] sched/cpufreq: always consider " Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-05-30 16:50 ` Patrick Bellasi
2018-05-31 10:46 ` Rafael J. Wysocki [this message]
2018-05-24 14:10 ` [PATCH v3 2/2] sched/fair: util_est: update before schedutil Patrick Bellasi
2018-05-25 9:48 ` [tip:sched/core] sched/fair: Update util_est before updating schedutil tip-bot for Patrick Bellasi
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=1882135.N2Fi74R5Qz@aspire.rjw.lan \
--to=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--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=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=smuckle@google.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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®