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:   Tue, 18 Jun 2019 09:25:56 +0100
From:   Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Cc:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Introduce fits_capacity()
Message-ID: <20190618082553.tonhmthyy6mo3iui@queper01-lin>
References: <b477ac75a2b163048bdaeb37f57b4c3f04f75a31.1559631700.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
 <20190605091644.w3g7hc7r3eiscz4f@queper01-lin>
 <20190606025204.qe5v7j6fysjkgxc6@vireshk-i7>
 <20190617150204.GG3436@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20190618031217.63md32da5pzydqia@vireshk-i7>
 <CAJZ5v0g4shiz+Hq+0fS1GQjQX7tK5EyLiX-SOpDoTm4xswV8bg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190618074728.gf6wugkbndhhcqql@vireshk-i7>
 <CAJZ5v0hi_zXPWqMS_VFnrbs8=BZbhcQRzm6B7fNZYWTXQhA3Mw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAJZ5v0hi_zXPWqMS_VFnrbs8=BZbhcQRzm6B7fNZYWTXQhA3Mw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20171215
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tuesday 18 Jun 2019 at 10:10:48 (+0200), Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 9:47 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > On 18-06-19, 09:26, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 5:12 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > +Rafael
> > > >
> > > > On 17-06-19, 17:02, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Jun 06, 2019 at 08:22:04AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > > > > > Hmm, even if the values are same currently I am not sure if we want
> > > > > > the same for ever. I will write a patch for it though, if Peter/Rafael
> > > > > > feel the same as you.
> > > > >
> > > > > Is it really the same variable or just two numbers that happen to be the
> > > > > same?
> > > >
> > > > In both cases we are trying to keep the load under 80% of what can be supported.
> > > > But I am not sure of the answer to your question.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe Rafael knows :)
> > >
> > > Which variable?
> >
> > Schedutil multiplies the target frequency by 1.25 (20% more capacity eventually)
> > to get enough room for more load and similar thing is done in fair.c at several
> > places to see if the new task can fit in a runqueue without overloading it.
> 
> For the schedutil part, see the changelog of the commit that introduced it:
> 
> 9bdcb44e391d cpufreq: schedutil: New governor based on scheduler
> utilization data
> 
> As for the other places, I don't know about the exact reasoning.
> 
> > Quentin suggested to use common code for this calculation and that is what is
> > getting discussed here.
> 
> I guess if the rationale for the formula is the same in all cases, it
> would be good to consolidate that code and document the rationale
> while at it.

I _think_ it is, but I guess others could correct me if this is
incorrect.

When choosing a CPU or a frequency using a util value, we look for a
capacity that will provide us with 20% of idle time. And in both case we
use the same threshold, just hardcoded in different places. Hence the
suggestion to unify things.

I hope that makes sense :-)

Thanks,
Quentin