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:   Thu, 17 Oct 2019 12:11:16 +0100
From:   Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Douglas Raillard <douglas.raillard@arm.com>,
        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 0/6] sched/cpufreq: Make schedutil energy aware
Message-ID: <20191017111116.GA27006@google.com>
References: <20191011134500.235736-1-douglas.raillard@arm.com>
 <20191014145315.GZ2311@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <a1ce67d7-62c3-b78b-1d87-23ef4dbc2274@arm.com>
 <20191017095015.GI2311@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20191017095015.GI2311@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thursday 17 Oct 2019 at 11:50:15 (+0200), Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Now, the thing is, we use map_util_freq() in more places, and should we
> not reflect this increase in C for all of them? That is, why is this
> patch changing get_next_freq() and not map_util_freq().
> 
> I don't think that question is answered in the Changelogs.
> 
> Exactly because it does change the energy consumption (it must) should
> that not also be reflected in the EAS logic?

Right that shouldn't hurt and keep things consistent. That probably
won't have a huge impact in practice (the boost should be != 0 only when
the util signals haven't converged IIUC, which is a case where the EAS
calculation is already 'wrong' anyway), but that still feels like the
right thing to do.

> I'm still thinking about the exact means you're using to raise C; that
> is, the 'util - util_est' as cost_margin. It hurts my brain still.

+1 ...

Thanks,
Quentin