On Fri, 23 Oct 2020 at 12:54, Viresh Kumar <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 23-10-20, 12:34, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 03:50:20PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c > > > index d2003a7d5ab5..369ff54d11d4 100644 > > > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c > > > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c > > > @@ -5117,6 +5117,119 @@ struct task_struct *idle_task(int cpu) > > > return cpu_rq(cpu)->idle; > > > } > > > > > > +/* > > > + * This function computes an effective utilization for the given CPU, to > > > be > > > + * used for frequency selection given the linear relation: f = u * f_max. > > > + * > > > + * The scheduler tracks the following metrics: > > > + * > > > + * cpu_util_{cfs,rt,dl,irq}() > > > + * cpu_bw_dl() > > > + * > > > + * Where the cfs,rt and dl util numbers are tracked with the same metric > > > and > > > + * synchronized windows and are thus directly comparable. > > > + * > > > + * The cfs,rt,dl utilization are the running times measured with > > > rq->clock_task > > > + * which excludes things like IRQ and steal-time. These latter are then > > > accrued > > > + * in the irq utilization. > > > + * > > > + * The DL bandwidth number otoh is not a measured metric but a value > > > computed > > > + * based on the task model parameters and gives the minimal utilization > > > + * required to meet deadlines. > > > + */ > > > +unsigned long effective_cpu_util(int cpu, unsigned long util_cfs, > > > + unsigned long max, enum cpu_util_type type, > > > + struct task_struct *p) > > > +{ > > ... > > > +} > > > + > > > +unsigned long sched_cpu_util(int cpu, enum cpu_util_type type, > > > + unsigned long max) > > > +{ > > > + return effective_cpu_util(cpu, cpu_util_cfs(cpu_rq(cpu)), max, type, > > > + NULL); > > > +} > > > > Shouldn't all that be: #ifdef CONFIG_SMP ? > > I didn't realize that these matrices are only available in case of SMP > and that's why schedutil isn't available for !SMP. I wonder what we
Maybe it's time to make sched_util and pelt available for !SMP too. With util_est and uclamp, I can see some benefits for !SMP compare to ondemand > should be doing in cpufreq_cooling now ? Make it depend on SMP ? Or > calculate load the traditional way (the stuff I just removed) for !SMP > case ? > > :) > > -- > viresh
