MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20160310100728.GT6344@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <CAJZ5v0h47h-xW6a4jzwRuOOOSG+qsD9hegM7QCzbD8Wb-yPVKQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <56D8AEB7.2050100@linaro.org> <36459679.vzZnOsAVeg@vostro.rjw.lan>
 <20160308112759.GF6356@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <CAJZ5v0i+KFmpggrGKqtL_SB1=Fv=b_AbVeL-9jPfo4rYt6-q5A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160308192640.GD6344@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <CAJZ5v0g=dXmoPr0jR6AVuynVYbSwJvnS2dFhb7QnUKq9LRRnrQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160309163930.GP6356@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <CAJZ5v0iKn4dT4ta6WaEcPbdYmA7P08=bmKU+dwcMx+Msk7WRFg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKfTPtB1g6VgA8NBep553C4MZ19B-rD4Xdp6EpZNAu+mYmx+2w@mail.gmail.com> <20160310100728.GT6344@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
From: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 17:26:34 +0700
Message-ID: <CAKfTPtAV0yxBQu7CSA-3GZY+ibs8=rkP13ZoBDMJfH3jV6SX=Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] cpufreq: schedutil: New governor based on scheduler
 utilization data
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@linaro.org>,
        Linux PM list <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1784
Lines: 46

On 10 March 2016 at 17:07, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 10:44:21AM +0700, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>> We have the arch_scale_freq_capacity function that is arch dependent
>> and can be used to merge the 2 formula that were described by peter
>> above.
>> By default, arch_scale_freq_capacity return SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE which
>> is max capacity
>> but when arch_scale_freq_capacity is defined by an architecture,
>
>> arch_scale_freq_capacity returns current_freq * max_capacity/max_freq
>
> However, current_freq is a very fluid thing, it might (and will) change
> very rapidly on some platforms.
>
> This is the same point I made earlier, you cannot try and divide out
> current_freq from the invariant measure.
>
>> so can't we use arch_scale_freq in your formula ? Taking your formula
>> above it becomes:
>> next_freq = 1.25 * current_freq * util / arch_scale_freq_capacity()
>
> No, that cannot work, nor makes any sense, per the above.
>
>> With invariance feature, we have:
>>
>>   next_freq = 1.25 * current_freq * util / (current_freq*max_capacity/max_freq)
>>             = 1.25 * util * max_freq / max
>>
>> which is the formula that has to be used with frequency invariant
>> utilization.
>
> Wrong, you cannot talk about current_freq in the invariant case.
>
>> May be we can pass arch_scale_freq_capacity value instead of max one
>> as a parameter of update_util function prototype
>
> No, since its a compile time thing, we can simply do:
>
> #ifdef arch_scale_freq_capacity
>         next_freq = (1 + 1/n) * max_freq * (util / max)
> #else
>         next_freq = (1 + 1/n) * current_freq * (util_raw / max)
> #endif

selecting formula at compilation is clearly better. I wrongly thought
that it can't be accepted as a solution.