From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752230AbeB1LQA (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Feb 2018 06:16:00 -0500 Received: from mail-wr0-f179.google.com ([209.85.128.179]:33986 "EHLO mail-wr0-f179.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752120AbeB1LP6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Feb 2018 06:15:58 -0500 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELvAikmyMiLwsHPzSdY1lekCioGWZRyHSKMlG8dLhvEwRbPAejccX3kuj8YQ9Hmoh6brgWwRkw== Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] cpufreq: schedutil: rate limits for SCHED_DEADLINE To: "Rafael J . Wysocki" , Viresh Kumar Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , Patrick Bellasi , Dietmar Eggemann , Morten Rasmussen , Juri Lelli , Vincent Guittot , Todd Kjos , Joel Fernandes , linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <1519815970-5686-1-git-send-email-claudio@evidence.eu.com> From: Claudio Scordino Message-ID: <870e5cb6-bb3b-7d51-93b3-db4928f700b4@evidence.eu.com> Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 12:15:56 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1519815970-5686-1-git-send-email-claudio@evidence.eu.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Dear Rafael, dear Viresh, Il 28/02/2018 12:06, Claudio Scordino ha scritto: > When the SCHED_DEADLINE scheduling class increases the CPU utilization, > we should not wait for the rate limit, otherwise we may miss some > deadline. > > Tests using rt-app on Exynos5422 with up to 10 SCHED_DEADLINE tasks have > shown reductions of even 10% of deadline misses with a negligible > increase of energy consumption (measured through Baylibre Cape). As a follow up of the previous thread, I've put some figures here: https://gist.github.com/claudioscordino/d4a10e8b3ceac419fb0c8b552db19806 In some cases, I've noticed the patch to even reduce the energy consumption (due to a mix of factors plus DL tasks entering the inactive state sooner). I've also tried to create the "ramp-up" scenario by allocating 10 DL tasks on the same core, but it didn't produce any significant increase of consumption. IMHO, the overall behavior looks better. Best regards, Claudio