Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 18:39:33 +0000
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>,
        Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>,
        "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@csie.org>,
        "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@arm.com>,
        Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk>,
        Kumar Gala <galak@codeaurora.org>, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
        Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@free-electrons.com>,
        Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        LAK <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul@pwsan.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net>,
        Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/8] Documentation: arm: define DT cpu capacity
 bindings
Message-ID: <20151215183933.GC8568@leverpostej>
References: <20151215140135.GI31299@leverpostej>
 <20151215150813.GZ5727@sirena.org.uk>
 <20151215153218.GA7228@leverpostej>
 <20151215154651.GK16007@e106622-lin>
 <20151215155737.GB7619@leverpostej>
 <20151215162317.GB24286@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
 <20151215164145.GA8012@leverpostej>
 <CAKfTPtAuosPcL8bbQ27Y-vUE1h4QRY8hGESnm4YrxqRAQ3K=5g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20151215171518.GC8012@leverpostej>
 <CAKfTPtBzWcNHx+Fi7hUabNpPsd1thFAkPnLcpsnqbQp6Qq24cQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAKfTPtBzWcNHx+Fi7hUabNpPsd1thFAkPnLcpsnqbQp6Qq24cQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 3397
Lines: 67

On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 06:47:20PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 15 December 2015 at 18:15, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 05:59:34PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> >> On 15 December 2015 at 17:41, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 04:23:18PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 03:57:37PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> >> >> > On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 03:46:51PM +0000, Juri Lelli wrote:
> >> >> > > On 15/12/15 15:32, Mark Rutland wrote:
> >> >> > > > On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 03:08:13PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> >> >> > > > > My expectation is that we just need good enough, not perfect, and that
> >> >> > > > > seems to match what Juri is saying about the expectation that most of
> >> >> > > > > the fine tuning is done via other knobs.
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > My expectation is that if a ballpark figure is good enough, it should be
> >> >> > > > possible to implement something trivial like bogomips / loop_per_jiffy
> >> >> > > > calculation.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > I didn't really followed that, so I might be wrong here, but isn't
> >> >> > > already happened a discussion about how we want/like to stop exposing
> >> >> > > bogomips info or rely on it for anything but in kernel delay loops?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I meant that we could have a benchmark of that level of complexity,
> >> >> > rather than those specific values.
> >> >>
> >> >> Or we could simply let user space use whatever benchmarks or hard-coded
> >> >> values it wants and set the capacity via sysfs (during boot). By
> >> >> default, the kernel would assume all CPUs equal.
> >> >
> >> > I assume that a userspace override would be available regardless of
> >> > whatever mechanism the kernel uses to determine relative
> >> > performance/effinciency.
> >>
> >> Don't you think that if we let a complete latitude to the userspace
> >> to set whatever it wants, it will be used to abuse the kernel (and the
> >> scheduler in particular ) and that this will finish in a real mess to
> >> understand what is wrong when a task is not placed where it should be.
> >
> > I'm not sure I follow what you mean by "abuse" here. Userspace currently
> > can force the scheduler to make sub-optimal decisions in a number of
> > ways, e.g.
> >
> > * Hot-unplugging the preferred CPUs
> > * Changing a task's affinity mask
> > * Setting the nice value of a task
> > * Using rlimits and/or cgroups
> > * Using a cpufreq governor
> > * Fork-bombing
> 
> All these are parameters have a meaning (except the last one). By
> abusing i mean setting the capacity of the most powerful cpu to 1 for
> no good reason except to abuse the scheduler so the latter will not
> put that much tasks on it just  because the current running use case
> is more efficient if the big core is not used.

Surely it's better to allow them to "abuse" the kernel in that manner
than to place otherwise insane values into a DT? Especially if they can
later change to a sane value?

For that particular case it's easy to hotplug out the big core, or to
set the affinity of tasks to avoid it.

Mark.
--
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/