Re: [PATCH 2/2] sched: cpufreq: use rt_avg as estimate of required RT CPU capacity

["Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>]

On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 06:40:09 PM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 06:28:10PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > That is the way it's been with cpufreq and many systems (including all
> > > mobile devices) rely on that to not destroy power. RT + variable cpufreq
> > > is not deterministic.
> > > 
> > > Given we don't have good constraints on RT tasks I don't think we should
> > > try to strengthen the semantics there. Folks should either move to DL if
> > > they want determinism *and* not-sucky power, or continue disabling
> > > cpufreq if they are able to do so.
> > 
> > RT deterministic behaviour is all about meeting the deadlines. If your
> > deadline is relaxed enough that you can meet it even with the lowest cpu
> > frequency then it's perfectly fine to enable cpufreq. The same logic applies
> > to C-States.
> > 
> > There are a lot of RT systems out there which enable both. If cpufreq or
> > c-states cause a deadline violation because the constraints of the system are
> > tight, then people will disable it and we need a knob for both.
> > 
> > Realtime is not as fast as possible. It's as fast as specified.
> 
> Sure, problem is of course that RR/FIFO doesn't specify anything so the
> users are left to prod knobs.
> 
> Another problem is that we have many semi related knobs; we have the
> global RT runtime limit knob, but that doesn't affect cpufreq (maybe it
> should) and cpufreq has knobs to set f_min and f_max, which again are
> unaware of RT anything.
> 
> So before we go do anything, I'd like input on what is needed and how
> things should tie together to make most sense.

I totally agree.

We need to know where we want to get to before deciding on which way to go.

Thanks,
Rafael