From: Qais Yousef <qyousef@layalina.io>
To: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
Cc: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
mingo@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, rafael@kernel.org,
viresh.kumar@linaro.org, vschneid@redhat.com,
linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
lukasz.luba@arm.com, wvw@google.com, xuewen.yan94@gmail.com,
han.lin@mediatek.com, Jonathan.JMChen@mediatek.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] sched/fair: unlink misfit task from cpu overutilized
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2023 16:38:41 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230117163841.d5jv6ysqf5kmvvmh@airbuntu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <78bf2d91-0076-f748-7c6a-530dad466787@arm.com>
On 01/16/23 09:07, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
[...]
> Not sure if people get what `performance requirements` mean here? I know
> we want to use `performance` rather `bandwidth hint` to describe what
> uclamp is. So shouldn't we use `utilization but also uclamp`?
We do have the uclamp doc now which explains this, no? I'm not keen on
utilization because it's an overloaded term. In the context of uclamp
- utilization _signal_ in the scheduler is used to indicate performance
requirements of a workload, no?
Using 'uclamp hint' if you found it really confusing, is fine by me. But I'd
rather steer away from 'bandwidth' or 'utilization' when describing uclamp and
its intention.
I like using performance requirements because it enforces what this hint
actually means.
Cheers
--
Qais Yousef
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-01-17 16:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-01-13 13:40 Vincent Guittot
2023-01-15 0:19 ` Qais Yousef
2023-01-16 11:08 ` Vincent Guittot
2023-01-17 16:20 ` Qais Yousef
2023-01-18 13:49 ` Vincent Guittot
2023-01-16 9:07 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2023-01-16 11:23 ` Vincent Guittot
2023-01-16 14:56 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2023-01-17 20:20 ` Qais Yousef
2023-01-18 8:15 ` Vincent Guittot
2023-01-18 16:48 ` Qais Yousef
2023-01-19 10:08 ` Vincent Guittot
2023-01-20 18:53 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2023-01-17 16:38 ` Qais Yousef [this message]
2023-01-18 16:17 ` Dietmar Eggemann
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=20230117163841.d5jv6ysqf5kmvvmh@airbuntu \
--to=qyousef@layalina.io \
--cc=Jonathan.JMChen@mediatek.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=han.lin@mediatek.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lukasz.luba@arm.com \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
--cc=vschneid@redhat.com \
--cc=wvw@google.com \
--cc=xuewen.yan94@gmail.com \
/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®