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, 14 Oct 2019 16:33:21 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Douglas RAILLARD <douglas.raillard@arm.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
        mingo@redhat.com, rjw@rjwysocki.net, viresh.kumar@linaro.org,
        juri.lelli@redhat.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org,
        dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, qperret@qperret.net,
        patrick.bellasi@matbug.net, dh.han@samsung.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 4/6] sched/cpufreq: Introduce sugov_cpu_ramp_boost
Message-ID: <20191014143321.GH2328@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20191011134500.235736-1-douglas.raillard@arm.com>
 <20191011134500.235736-5-douglas.raillard@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20191011134500.235736-5-douglas.raillard@arm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 02:44:58PM +0100, Douglas RAILLARD wrote:
> Use the utilization signals dynamic to detect when the utilization of a
> set of tasks starts increasing because of a change in tasks' behavior.
> This allows detecting when spending extra power for faster frequency
> ramp up response would be beneficial to the reactivity of the system.
> 
> This ramp boost is computed as the difference
> util_avg-util_est_enqueued. This number somehow represents a lower bound

That reads funny, maybe 'as the difference between util_avg and
util_est_enqueued' ?

> of how much extra utilization this tasks is actually using, compared to
> our best current stable knowledge of it (which is util_est_enqueued).
> 
> When the set of runnable tasks changes, the boost is disabled as the
> impact of blocked utilization on util_avg will make the delta with
> util_est_enqueued not very informative.

> @@ -561,6 +604,7 @@ static unsigned int sugov_next_freq_shared(struct sugov_cpu *sg_cpu, u64 time)
>  		}
>  	}
>  
> +
>  	return get_next_freq(sg_policy, util, max);
>  }

Surely we can do without this extra whitespace? :-)