MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20151214165128.GU6357@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <1449641971-20827-1-git-send-email-smuckle@linaro.org>
 <1449641971-20827-10-git-send-email-smuckle@linaro.org> <20151214151729.GQ6357@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <CAKfTPtAVmS6BHWcGz4cB0bpEE91QzU5sSmMWZB9j_vpK0qjwHg@mail.gmail.com> <20151214165128.GU6357@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
From: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 05:43:44 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKfTPtCRGuWY8aXCKVHumM3nLODsWm55ZHhkBm4v5HzPEn+J_g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFCv6 PATCH 09/10] sched: deadline: use deadline bandwidth in scale_rt_capacity
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@linaro.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Juri Lelli <Juri.Lelli@arm.com>,
        Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>,
        Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@unitn.it>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1730
Lines: 36

On 14 December 2015 at 17:51, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 04:56:17PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> I agree that if the WCET is far from reality, we will underestimate
>> available capacity for CFS. Have you got some use case in mind which
>> overestimates the WCET ?
>
> Pretty much any 'correct' WCET is pessimistic. There's heaps of smart
> people working on improving WCET bounds, but they're still out there.
> This is mostly because of the .00001% tail cases that 'never' happen but
> would make your tokamak burn a hole just when you're outside.
>
>> If we can't rely on this parameters to evaluate the amount of capacity
>> used by deadline scheduler on a core, this will imply that we can't
>> also use it for requesting capacity to cpufreq and we should fallback
>> on a monitoring mechanism which reacts to a change instead of
>> anticipating it.
>
> No, since the WCET can and _will_ happen, its the best you can do with
> cpufreq. If you were to set it lower you could not be able to execute
> correctly in your 'never' tail cases.

In the context of frequency scaling, This mean that we will never
reach low frequency


>
> There 'might' be smart pants ways around this, where you run part of the
> execution at lower speed and switch to a higher speed to 'catch' up if
> you exceed some boundary, such that, on average, you run at the same
> speed the WCET mandates, but I'm not sure that's worth it. Juri/Luca
> might know.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/