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:   Fri, 24 Jan 2020 14:58:22 +0000
From:   Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>
To:     Douglas Raillard <douglas.raillard@arm.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rjw@rjwysocki.net,
        viresh.kumar@linaro.org, peterz@infradead.org,
        juri.lelli@redhat.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org,
        dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 3/6] sched/cpufreq: Hook em_pd_get_higher_power()
 into get_next_freq()
Message-ID: <20200124145822.GA221730@google.com>
References: <20200122173538.1142069-1-douglas.raillard@arm.com>
 <20200122173538.1142069-4-douglas.raillard@arm.com>
 <20200123161644.GA144523@google.com>
 <5a2af4e7-f9eb-4f23-908a-fab2c7395a99@arm.com>
 <20200124143704.GA215244@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200124143704.GA215244@google.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Friday 24 Jan 2020 at 14:37:04 (+0000), Quentin Perret wrote:
> On Thursday 23 Jan 2020 at 17:52:53 (+0000), Douglas Raillard wrote:
> > We can't really move the call to em_pd_get_higher_freq() into
> > cpufreq_driver_resolve_freq() since that's a schedutil-specific feature,
> > and we would loose the !sg_policy->need_freq_update optimization.
> 
> Depends how you do it. You could add a new method to cpufreq_policy that

s/cpufreq_policy/cpufreq_governor

> is defined only for sugov or something along those lines. And you'd call
> that instead of cpufreq_frequency_table_target() when that makes sense.
> 
> > Maybe we can add a flag to cpufreq_driver_resolve_freq() that promises
> > that the frequency is already a valid one. We have to be careful though,
> > since a number of things can make that untrue:
> >  - em_pd_get_higher_freq() will return the passed freq verbatim if it's
> > higher than the max freq, so em_pd_get_higher_freq() will have to set
> > the flag itself in case that logic changes.
> >  - policy limits can change the value
> >  - future things could tinker with the freq and forget to reset the flag.
> > 
> > If you think it's worth it I can make these changes.
> 
> The thing is, not only with the current patch we end up iterating the
> frequencies twice for nothing, but also I think it'd be interesting to
> use the EM for consistency with EAS. It'd be nice to use the same data
> structure for the predictions we do in compute_energy() and for the
> actual request.
> 
> Thoughts ?
> 
> Quentin