From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754050AbcCAO0X (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Mar 2016 09:26:23 -0500 Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:33710 "EHLO casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752636AbcCAO0W (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Mar 2016 09:26:22 -0500 Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2016 15:26:20 +0100 From: Peter Zijlstra To: Juri Lelli Cc: Vincent Guittot , Steve Muckle , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Linux PM list , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Srinivas Pandruvada , Viresh Kumar , Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] cpufreq: Replace timers with utilization update callbacks Message-ID: <20160301142620.GX6375@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <56BA8C29.4090905@linaro.org> <20160211115959.GI6357@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20160211122429.GM11415@e106622-lin> <20160211152625.GM6357@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20160212140415.GS6357@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20160301135811.GQ6356@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20160301141706.GJ18792@e106622-lin> <20160301142459.GR6356@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160301142459.GR6356@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2012-12-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Mar 01, 2016 at 03:24:59PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Mar 01, 2016 at 02:17:06PM +0000, Juri Lelli wrote: > > On 01/03/16 14:58, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 03:48:54PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote: > > > > > > > Another point to take into account is that the RT tasks will "steal" > > > > the compute capacity that has been requested by the cfs tasks. > > > > > > > > Let takes the example of a CPU with 3 OPP on which run 2 rt tasks A > > > > and B and 1 cfs task C. > > > > > > > Let assume that the real time constraint of RT task A is too agressive > > > > for the lowest OPP0 and that the change of the frequency of the core > > > > is too slow compare to this constraint but the real time constraint of > > > > RT task B can be handle whatever the OPP. System don't have other > > > > choice than setting the cpufreq min freq to OPP1 to be sure that > > > > constraint of task A will be covered at anytime. > > > > > > > Then, we still have 2 > > > > possible OPPs. The CFS task asks for compute capacity that fits in > > > > OPP1 but a part of this capacity will be stolen by RT tasks. If we > > > > monitor the load of RT tasks and request capacity for these RT tasks > > > > according to their current utilization, we can decide to switch to > > > > highest OPP2 to ensure that task C will have enough remaining > > > > capacity. A lot of embedded platform faces such kind of use cases > > > > > > Still doesn't make sense. How would you know the constraint of RT task > > > A, and that it cannot be satisfied by OPP0 ? The only information you > > > have in the task model is a static priority. > > > > > > > But, can't we have the problem Vincent describes if we s/RT/DL/ ? > > Still not sure I actually see a problem. With DL you have a minimal OPP > required to guarantee correct execution of the DL tasks. For CFS you > have an average util reflecting its workload. > > Add the two and you've got an effective OPP request. Or in CPPC terms: > we request a min freq of the DL and a max freq of DL+avg_CFS. > > We could probably improve upon that by also tracking an avg DL and > lowering the max freq request to: min(DL, avg_DL + avg_CFS). The max(DL, avg_DL + avg_CFS) obviously! ;-) > consequence is that when the DL tasks hit peaks (over their avg) the CFS > tasks get a little more delay. But this might be a worthwhile trade-off.