Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 13 Aug 2018 11:12:21 +0100
From:   Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
To:     Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Cc:     Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "open list:THERMAL" <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
        viresh kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
        Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>,
        Todd Kjos <tkjos@google.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>,
        "Cc: Steve Muckle" <smuckle@google.com>, surenb@google.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 06/14] sched/cpufreq: uclamp: add utilization clamping
 for RT tasks
Message-ID: <20180813101221.GA2605@e110439-lin>
References: <20180806163946.28380-1-patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
 <20180806163946.28380-7-patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
 <20180807132630.GB3062@localhost.localdomain>
 <20180809153423.nsoepprhut3dv4u2@darkstar>
 <CAKfTPtCWcq2bOmaC5EDdhS8ih8Sv7Mwzn=84xerKA2tY6kXLkw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAKfTPtCWcq2bOmaC5EDdhS8ih8Sv7Mwzn=84xerKA2tY6kXLkw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Vincent!

On 09-Aug 18:03, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > On 07-Aug 15:26, Juri Lelli wrote:

[...]

> > > > +   util_cfs = cpu_util_cfs(rq);
> > > > +   util_rt  = cpu_util_rt(rq);
> > > > +   if (sched_feat(UCLAMP_SCHED_CLASS)) {
> > > > +           util = 0;
> > > > +           if (util_cfs)
> > > > +                   util += uclamp_util(cpu_of(rq), util_cfs);
> > > > +           if (util_rt)
> > > > +                   util += uclamp_util(cpu_of(rq), util_rt);
> > > > +   } else {
> > > > +           util  = cpu_util_cfs(rq);
> > > > +           util += cpu_util_rt(rq);
> > > > +           util  = uclamp_util(cpu_of(rq), util);
> > > > +   }
> >
> > Regarding the two policies, do you have any comment?
> 
> Does the policy for (sched_feat(UCLAMP_SCHED_CLASS)== true) really
> make sense as it is ?
> I mean, uclamp_util doesn't make any difference between rt and cfs
> tasks when clamping the utilization so why should be add twice the
> returned value ?
> IMHO, this policy would make sense if there were something like
> uclamp_util_rt() and a uclamp_util_cfs()

The idea for the UCLAMP_SCHED_CLASS policy is to improve fairness on
low-priority classese, especially when we have high RT utilization.

Let say we have:

 util_rt  = 40%, util_min=0%
 util_cfs = 10%, util_min=50%

the two policies will select:

  UCLAMP_SCHED_CLASS: util = uclamp(40) + uclamp(10) = 50 + 50   = 100%
 !UCLAMP_SCHED_CLASS: util = uclamp(40 + 10)         = uclmp(50) =  50%

Which means that, despite the CPU's util_min will be set to 50% when
CFS is running, these tasks will have almost no boost at all, since
their bandwidth margin is eclipsed by RT tasks.

> > We had an internal discussion and we found pro/cons for both... but

The UCLAMP_SCHED_CLASS policy is thus less energy efficiency but it
should grant a better "isolation" in terms of what is the expected
speed-up a task will get at run-time, independently from higher
priority classes.

Does that make sense?

> > I'm not sure keeping the sched_feat is a good solution on the long
> > run, i.e. mainline merge ;)

This problem still stands...

-- 
#include <best/regards.h>

Patrick Bellasi