On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 10:50:53AM +0100, Juri Lelli wrote: > Agreed. However, problem seems to be that > > - in my opinion (current implementation) this translated into scaling > runtime considering current freq and cpu-max-capacity; and this is > required when frequency scaling is enabled and we still want to meet > a task's guaranteed bandwidth
Just so. The bandwidth they request is based on instructions/work. We need to get a certain amount of instructions sorted. Nobody cares we get an exact 10% at random frequency if they loose they finger because we didn't get that final instruction out that stops the saw blade. > - Luca seemed instead to be inclined to say that, if we scale runtime > for !reclaim tasks, such tasks are basically allowed to run for more > time (when frequency is lower than max) by using some of the > bandwidth not allocated to themselves Yes, that's a wrong view :-) We don't care about 'time', we care about getting the instruction stream / work completed.
