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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190620150555.15717-1-patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
 <CAKfTPtDTfyBvfwE6_gtjxJoPNS6YGQ7rrLcjg_M-jr=YSc+FNA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190628100751.lpcwsouacsi2swkm@e110439-lin> <20190628123800.GS3419@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20190628140057.7aujh2wsk7wtqib3@e110439-lin> <20190802094725.ploqfarz7fj7vrtp@e110439-lin>
 <20191014145218.GI2328@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
In-Reply-To: <20191014145218.GI2328@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
From:   Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Date:   Mon, 14 Oct 2019 16:57:52 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKfTPtDK-KSVz6HSr185yEj2TzZrNRx5FG_pUpp0-rxHWsXurQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: util_est: fast ramp-up EWMA on utilization increases
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
        Douglas Raillard <douglas.raillard@arm.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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 at 16:52, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
>
>
> The energy aware schedutil patches remimded me this was still pending.
>
> On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 10:47:25AM +0100, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> > Hi Peter, Vincent,
> > is there anything different I can do on this?
>
> I think both Vincent and me are basically fine with the patch, it was
> the Changelog/explanation for it that sat uneasy.

I agree

>
> Specifically I think the 'confusion' around the PELT invariance stuff
> doesn't help.
>
> I think that if you present it simply as making util_est directly follow
> upward motion and only decay on downward -- and the rationale for it --
> then it should be fine.
>
>