Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 16:41:23 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
        Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>, Todd Kjos <tkjos@android.com>,
        Tim Murray <timmurray@google.com>,
        Andres Oportus <andresoportus@google.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>,
        Chris Redpath <chris.redpath@arm.com>,
        Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v3 0/5] Add capacity capping support to the CPU controller
Message-ID: <20170412144123.prdymtvheik2t4mq@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <1488292722-19410-1-git-send-email-patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
 <20170320145131.GA3623@htj.duckdns.org>
 <20170320172233.GA28391@e110439-lin>
 <20170410073622.2y6tnpcd2ssuoztz@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20170411175833.GI29455@e110439-lin>
 <20170412121514.GE3093@worktop>
 <20170412133448.GL29455@e110439-lin>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170412133448.GL29455@e110439-lin>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1443
Lines: 34

On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 02:34:48PM +0100, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> On 12-Apr 14:15, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 06:58:33PM +0100, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> > > We should consider also that at the CPUFreq side we already expose
> > > knobs like scaling_{min,max}_freq which are much more platform
> > > dependant than capacity.
> > 
> > So I've always objected to these knobs.
> > 
> > That said; they are a pre-existing user interface so changing them isn't
> > really feasible much.
> > 
> > But at the very least we should integrate them properly. Which for
> > schedutil would mean they have to directly modify the relevant CPU
> > capacity values. Is this currently done? (I think not.)
> 
> AFAICS they are clamping the policy decisions, thus the frequency
> domain... which can be more then one CPU on ARM platforms.

Right, knew that. Must've missed the 's' when typing ;-)

> When you say you would like them to "directly modify the relevant CPU
> capacity values" I really see this as exactly what we do with
> capacity_{min,max}.

What I mean is that when we set max as lower than max-freq, it should
reduce the CPU(s)' capacity. That's something entirely different from what
you're attempting (and not something we do currently afaik).

Also; there's as yet unexplored interaction between these knobs and the
RT bandwidth limits.

But the main point is that these knobs are system wide and do not affect
tasks.