Hi Peter,
On 21-Sep 11:13, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 01:27:23PM +0100, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
[...]
While going back to one of our previous conversation, I noted these
comments:
> > Thus, the capacity of little CPUs, or the exact capacity of an OPP, is
> > something we don't care to specify exactly, since:
[...]
> > - certain platforms don't even expose OPPs, but just "performance
> > levels"... which ultimately are a "percentage"
>
> Well, the whole capacity thing is a 'percentage', it's just that 1024 is
> much nicer to work with (for computers) than 100 is (also it provides a
> wee bit more resolution).
Here above I was referring to the Intel's HWP support [1],
specifically at the:
Ability of HWP to allow software to set an energy/performance
preference hint in the IA32_HWP_REQUEST MSR.
which is detailed in section "14.4.4 Managing HWP".
The {Minimum,Maximum}_Performance registers represent what I consider
the best semantics for UtilClamp.
In the HWP case we use 256 range values, and thus for UtilClamp as
well it would make more sense to use a 1024 scale as suggested by
Peter, even just to have a bit more room, while still considering the
clamp values _as a percentage_, with just one decimal digit of
resolution
I think the important bit here is the abstraction between what we
the user can require and what the platform can provided.
If HWP does not allow the OS to pinpoint a specific frequency, why
should a user-space interface be designed to pinpoint a specific
capacity ?
Can we find here a common ground around the idea that UtilClamp values
represent a 1024 range percentage of minimum/maximum performance
expected by a task ?
Would be really nice to know what Rafael thing about all that...
Cheers Patrick
[1]
https://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/manuals/64-ia-32-architectures-software-developer-vol-3b-part-2-manual.pdf
--
#include <best/regards.h>
Patrick Bellasi
