From: Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>
To: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>
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>,
dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, patrick.bellasi@matbug.net,
lenb@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
ionela.voinescu@arm.com, qperret@google.com,
viresh.kumar@linaro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched: Add schedutil overview
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2020 14:40:07 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201218133655.GA10123@e123083-lin> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <jhjsg83s616.mognet@arm.com>
On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 11:33:09AM +0000, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> On 18/12/20 10:32, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > +Schedutil / DVFS
> > +----------------
> > +
> > +Every time the scheduler load tracking is updated (task wakeup, task
> > +migration, time progression) we call out to schedutil to update the hardware
> > +DVFS state.
> > +
> > +The basis is the CPU runqueue's 'running' metric, which per the above it is
> > +the frequency invariant utilization estimate of the CPU. From this we compute
> > +a desired frequency like:
> > +
> > + max( running, util_est ); if UTIL_EST
> > + u_cfs := { running; otherwise
> > +
> > + u_clamp := clamp( u_cfs, u_min, u_max )
> > +
> > + u := u_cfs + u_rt + u_irq + u_dl; [approx. see source for more detail]
> > +
> > + f_des := min( f_max, 1.25 u * f_max )
> > +
>
> In schedutil_cpu_util(), uclamp clamps both u_cfs and u_rt. I'm afraid the
> below might just bring more confusion; what do you think?
>
> clamp( u_cfs + u_rt, u_min, u_max ); if UCLAMP_TASK
> u_clamp := { u_cfs + u_rt; otherwise
>
> u := u_clamp + u_irq + u_dl; [approx. see source for more detail]
It is reflecting the code so I think it is worth it. It also fixes the
typo in the original sum (u_cfs -> u_clamp).
> (also, does this need a word about runnable rt tasks => goto max?)
What is actually the intended policy there? I thought it was goto max
unless rt was clamped, but if I read the code correctly in
schedutil_cpu_util() the current policy is only goto max if uclamp isn't
in use at all, including cfs.
The write-up looks good to me.
Reviewed-by: Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>
Morten
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-12-18 13:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-12-18 10:32 Peter Zijlstra
2020-12-18 11:33 ` Valentin Schneider
2020-12-18 13:40 ` Morten Rasmussen [this message]
2020-12-18 14:25 ` Valentin Schneider
2021-01-14 11:29 ` [tip: sched/core] " tip-bot2 for 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=20201218133655.GA10123@e123083-lin \
--to=morten.rasmussen@arm.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=patrick.bellasi@matbug.net \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=qperret@google.com \
--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
Powered by JetHome