Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1752256AbdGGK7k (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Fri, 7 Jul 2017 06:59:40 -0400
Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:46056 "EHLO foss.arm.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1751091AbdGGK7j (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Fri, 7 Jul 2017 06:59:39 -0400
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2017 11:59:32 +0100
From: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
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 <mingo@kernel.org>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 4/8] sched/cpufreq_schedutil: split utilization
 signals
Message-ID: <20170707105932.bnslgcqjp4rwg273@e106622-lin>
References: <20170705085905.6558-1-juri.lelli@arm.com>
 <20170705085905.6558-5-juri.lelli@arm.com>
 <20170707085848.GA32542@vireshk-i7>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170707085848.GA32542@vireshk-i7>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1784
Lines: 53

Hi,

On 07/07/17 14:28, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> 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 <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> 
> Are you referring to this response here ?
> 
> https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=149095102600847&w=2
> 

Yep.

> 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.
> 

Mmm, it makes retrieving of utilization in sugov_update_shared and
aggregating values for the domain in sugov_next_freq_shared cleaner,
IMHO.

Thanks,

- Juri