Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752608AbdGGI6y (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Jul 2017 04:58:54 -0400 Received: from mail-pf0-f169.google.com ([209.85.192.169]:33059 "EHLO mail-pf0-f169.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752021AbdGGI6w (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Jul 2017 04:58:52 -0400 Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2017 14:28:48 +0530 From: Viresh Kumar To: Juri Lelli Cc: peterz@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com, rjw@rjwysocki.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, rostedt@goodmis.org, luca.abeni@santannapisa.it, claudio@evidence.eu.com, tommaso.cucinotta@santannapisa.it, bristot@redhat.com, mathieu.poirier@linaro.org, tkjos@android.com, joelaf@google.com, andresoportus@google.com, morten.rasmussen@arm.com, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, patrick.bellasi@arm.com, Ingo Molnar , "Rafael J . Wysocki" Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 4/8] sched/cpufreq_schedutil: split utilization signals Message-ID: <20170707085848.GA32542@vireshk-i7> References: <20170705085905.6558-1-juri.lelli@arm.com> <20170705085905.6558-5-juri.lelli@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170705085905.6558-5-juri.lelli@arm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1506 Lines: 41 On 05-07-17, 09:59, Juri Lelli wrote: > To be able to treat utilization signals of different scheduling classes > in different ways (e.g., CFS signal might be stale while DEADLINE signal > is never stale by design) we need to split sugov_cpu::util signal in two: > util_cfs and util_dl. > > This patch does that by also changing sugov_get_util() parameter list. > After this change, aggregation of the different signals has to be performed > by sugov_get_util() users (so that they can decide what to do with the > different signals). > > Suggested-by: Rafael J. Wysocki Are you referring to this response here ? https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=149095102600847&w=2 If yes, then I don't think it was about having separate APIs, but just storing util_cfs/dl separately. > -static void sugov_get_util(unsigned long *util, unsigned long *max) > +static void sugov_get_util(struct sugov_cpu *sg_cpu) > { > struct rq *rq = this_rq(); > - unsigned long dl_util = (rq->dl.running_bw * SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE) > - >> BW_SHIFT; > > - *max = arch_scale_cpu_capacity(NULL, smp_processor_id()); > + sg_cpu->max = arch_scale_cpu_capacity(NULL, smp_processor_id()); > + sg_cpu->util_cfs = rq->cfs.avg.util_avg; > + sg_cpu->util_dl = (rq->dl.running_bw * SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE) > + >> BW_SHIFT; > +} > > +static unsigned long sugov_aggregate_util(struct sugov_cpu *sg_cpu) As Joel already mentioned, I don't think we should create two separate routines here. -- viresh