From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Linux PM list <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>,
        Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@linaro.org>,
        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>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 7/7] cpufreq: schedutil: New governor based on scheduler utilization data
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 22:42:43 +0100
Message-ID: <2783915.99ZkbDZnm2@vostro.rjw.lan>
User-Agent: KMail/4.11.5 (Linux/4.5.0-rc1+; KDE/4.11.5; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <20160316173541.GD6344@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <1711281.bPmSjlBT7c@vostro.rjw.lan> <11678919.CQLTrQTYxG@vostro.rjw.lan> <20160316173541.GD6344@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1971
Lines: 63

On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 06:35:41 PM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 03:59:18PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> 
> > +static unsigned int get_next_freq(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
> > +				  unsigned long util, unsigned long max)
> > +{
> > +	unsigned int freq = arch_scale_freq_invariant() ?
> > +				policy->cpuinfo.max_freq : policy->cur;
> > +
> > +	return (freq + (freq >> 2)) * util / max;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void sugov_update_single(struct update_util_data *hook, u64 time,
> > +				unsigned long util, unsigned long max)
> > +{
> > +	struct sugov_cpu *sg_cpu = container_of(hook, struct sugov_cpu, update_util);
> > +	struct sugov_policy *sg_policy = sg_cpu->sg_policy;
> > +	struct cpufreq_policy *policy = sg_policy->policy;
> > +	unsigned int next_f;
> > +
> > +	if (!sugov_should_update_freq(sg_policy, time))
> > +		return;
> > +
> > +	next_f = util <= max ?
> > +		get_next_freq(policy, util, max) : policy->cpuinfo.max_freq;
> 
> I'm not sure that is correct, would not something like this be more
> accurate?
> 
> 	if (util > max)
> 		util = max;
> 	next_f = get_next_freq(policy, util, max);
> 
> After all, if we clip util we will still only increment to the next freq
> with our multiplication factor.
> 
> Hmm, or was this meant to deal with the DL/RT stuff?

Yes, it was.

> Would then not something like:
> 
> 	/* ULONG_MAX is used to force max_freq for Real-Time policies */
> 	if (util == ULONG_MAX) {
> 		next_f = policy->cpuinfo.max_freq;
> 	} else {
> 		if (util > max)

That cannot happen given the way CFS deals with max before passing it
to cpufreq_update_util().

> 			util = max;
> 		next_f = get_next_freq(policy, util, max);
> 	}
> 
> Be clearer?
> 
> > +	sugov_update_commit(sg_policy, time, next_f);
> > +}

So essentially I can replace the util > max check with the util == ULONG_MAX one
(here and in some other places) if that helps to understand the code, but
functionally that won't change anything.