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:   Wed, 23 Jan 2019 20:10:07 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-api@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
        Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>,
        Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Todd Kjos <tkjos@google.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>,
        Steve Muckle <smuckle@google.com>,
        Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 07/16] sched/core: uclamp: Add system default clamps
Message-ID: <20190123191007.GG17749@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20190115101513.2822-1-patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
 <20190115101513.2822-8-patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
 <20190122135644.GP27931@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20190122144329.ziimv6fejwvky7yb@e110439-lin>
 <20190122151317.GH13777@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20190122154129.mxnpgaoxnccbjbch@e110439-lin>
 <20190123092210.GU27931@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20190123141924.x36iqxh42lkssrxl@e110439-lin>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190123141924.x36iqxh42lkssrxl@e110439-lin>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 02:19:24PM +0000, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> On 23-Jan 10:22, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 03:41:29PM +0000, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> > > On 22-Jan 16:13, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 02:43:29PM +0000, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> > 
> > > > > Do you think that could be acceptable?
> > > > 
> > > > Think so, it's a sysctl poke, 'nobody' ever does that.
> > > 
> > > Cool, so... I'll keep lazy update for system default.
> > 
> > Ah, I think I misunderstood. I meant to say that since nobody ever pokes
> > at sysctl's it doesn't matter if its a little more expensive and iterate
> > everything.
> 
> Here I was more worried about the code complexity/overhead... for
> something actually not very used/useful.
> 
> > Also; if you always keep everything up-to-date, you can avoid doing that
> > duplicate accounting.
> 
> To update everything we will have to walk all the CPUs and update all
> the RUNNABLE tasks currently enqueued, which are either RT or CFS.
> 
> That's way more expensive both in code and time then what we do for
> cgroups, where at least we have a limited scope since the cgroup
> already provides a (usually limited) list of tasks to consider.
> 
> Do you think it's really worth to have ?

Dunno; the whole double bucket thing seems a bit weird to me; but maybe
it will all look better without the mapping stuff.