Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 08:31:26 +0100
From: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@santannapisa.it>, claudio@evidence.eu.com,
        tommaso.cucinotta@santannapisa.it, bristot@redhat.com,
        mathieu.poirier@linaro.org, Todd Kjos <tkjos@android.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>,
        Andres Oportus <andresoportus@google.com>,
        Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFD PATCH 4/5] sched/cpufreq_schedutil: always consider all
 CPUs when deciding next freq
Message-ID: <20170331073126.GK19929@e106622-lin>
References: <20170324140900.7334-1-juri.lelli@arm.com>
 <20170324140900.7334-5-juri.lelli@arm.com>
 <2348394.hDdCk9fbgK@aspire.rjw.lan>
 <20170330085805.GF18960@e106622-lin>
 <CAJZ5v0jyHkVg80Uk5rh4Ax1wqFk=i+nbYEUfakDNrhu8zLnRzg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAJZ5v0jyHkVg80Uk5rh4Ax1wqFk=i+nbYEUfakDNrhu8zLnRzg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1571
Lines: 41

On 30/03/17 22:13, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 10:58 AM, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> 
> Hi,
> 
> > On 30/03/17 00:41, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> On Friday, March 24, 2017 02:08:59 PM Juri Lelli wrote:
> >> > No assumption can be made upon the rate at which frequency updates get
> >> > triggered, as there are scheduling policies (like SCHED_DEADLINE) which
> >> > don't trigger them so frequently.
> >> >
> >> > Remove such assumption from the code.
> >>
> >> But the util/max values for idle CPUs may be stale, no?
> >>
> >
> > Right, that might be a problem. A proper solution I think would be to
> > remotely update such values for idle CPUs, and I believe Vincent is
> > working on a patch for that.
> >
> > As mid-term workarounds, changing a bit the current one, come to my
> > mind:
> >
> >  - consider TICK_NSEC (continue) only when SCHED_CPUFREQ_DL is not set
> >  - remove CFS contribution (without triggering a freq update) when a CPU
> >    enters IDLE; this might not work well, though, as we probably want
> >    to keep in blocked util contribution for a bit
> >
> > What you think is the way to go?
> 
> Well, do we want SCHED_DEADLINE util contribution to be there even for
> idle CPUs?
> 

DEADLINE util contribution is removed, even if the CPU is idle, by the
reclaiming mechanism when we know (applying GRUB algorithm rules [1])
that it can't be used anymore by a task (roughly speaking). So, we
shouldn't have this problem in the DEADLINE case.

[1] https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=149029880524038