Re: [RFC/RFT][PATCH 2/2] cpufreq: schedutil: Utilization aggregation

2017-04-11 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Juri Lelli wrote: > On 10/04/17 23:13, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Juri Lelli wrote: > > [...] > >> > Given that for RT (and still for DL as well) the next event is a >> > periodic tick, couldn't happen that the required frequency

Re: [RFC/RFT][PATCH 2/2] cpufreq: schedutil: Utilization aggregation

2017-04-11 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 3:57 AM, Joel Fernandes wrote: > On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 1:59 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > [..] + sg_cpu->util = cfs_util; + sg_cpu->max = cfs_max; + } } >> >> >> Well, that's the idea. :-) >> >> During the discussio

Re: [RFC/RFT][PATCH 2/2] cpufreq: schedutil: Utilization aggregation

2017-04-11 Thread Juri Lelli
On 10/04/17 23:13, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Juri Lelli wrote: [...] > > Given that for RT (and still for DL as well) the next event is a > > periodic tick, couldn't happen that the required frequency transition > > for an RT task, that unfortunately woke up bef

Re: [RFC/RFT][PATCH 2/2] cpufreq: schedutil: Utilization aggregation

2017-04-10 Thread Joel Fernandes
On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 1:59 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: [..] >>> + sg_cpu->util = cfs_util; >>> + sg_cpu->max = cfs_max; >>> + } >>> } > > > Well, that's the idea. :-) > > During the discussion at the OSPM-summit we concluded that discarding > all of the utiliz

Re: [RFC/RFT][PATCH 2/2] cpufreq: schedutil: Utilization aggregation

2017-04-10 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Juri Lelli wrote: > Hi Rafael, Hi, > thanks for this set. I'll give it a try (together with your previous > patch) in the next few days. > > A question below. > > On 10/04/17 02:11, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> From: Rafael J. Wysocki >> >> Due to the limitation

Re: [RFC/RFT][PATCH 2/2] cpufreq: schedutil: Utilization aggregation

2017-04-10 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 8:39 AM, Joel Fernandes wrote: > Hi Rafael, Hi, > On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 5:11 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> From: Rafael J. Wysocki >> [cut] >> @@ -154,22 +153,30 @@ static unsigned int get_next_freq(struct >> return cpufreq_driver_resolve_freq(policy, freq)

Re: [RFC/RFT][PATCH 2/2] cpufreq: schedutil: Utilization aggregation

2017-04-10 Thread Juri Lelli
Hi Rafael, thanks for this set. I'll give it a try (together with your previous patch) in the next few days. A question below. On 10/04/17 02:11, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > From: Rafael J. Wysocki > > Due to the limitation of the rate of frequency changes the schedutil > governor only estimate

Re: [RFC/RFT][PATCH 2/2] cpufreq: schedutil: Utilization aggregation

2017-04-09 Thread Joel Fernandes
Hi Rafael, On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 5:11 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > From: Rafael J. Wysocki > > Due to the limitation of the rate of frequency changes the schedutil > governor only estimates the CPU utilization entirely when it is about > to update the frequency for the corresponding cpufreq p

[RFC/RFT][PATCH 2/2] cpufreq: schedutil: Utilization aggregation

2017-04-09 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
From: Rafael J. Wysocki Due to the limitation of the rate of frequency changes the schedutil governor only estimates the CPU utilization entirely when it is about to update the frequency for the corresponding cpufreq policy. As a result, the intermediate utilization values are discarded by it, b