Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Tue, 17 Jan 2023 16:38:41 +0000
From:   Qais Yousef <qyousef@layalina.io>
To:     Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
Cc:     Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>, mingo@kernel.org,
        peterz@infradead.org, rafael@kernel.org, viresh.kumar@linaro.org,
        vschneid@redhat.com, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lukasz.luba@arm.com, wvw@google.com,
        xuewen.yan94@gmail.com, han.lin@mediatek.com,
        Jonathan.JMChen@mediatek.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] sched/fair: unlink misfit task from cpu overutilized
Message-ID: <20230117163841.d5jv6ysqf5kmvvmh@airbuntu>
References: <20230113134056.257691-1-vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
 <78bf2d91-0076-f748-7c6a-530dad466787@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <78bf2d91-0076-f748-7c6a-530dad466787@arm.com>
Precedence: bulk

On 01/16/23 09:07, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:

[...]

> Not sure if people get what `performance requirements` mean here? I know
> we want to use `performance` rather `bandwidth hint` to describe what
> uclamp is. So shouldn't we use `utilization but also uclamp`?

We do have the uclamp doc now which explains this, no? I'm not keen on
utilization because it's an overloaded term. In the context of uclamp
- utilization _signal_ in the scheduler is used to indicate performance
requirements of a workload, no?

Using 'uclamp hint' if you found it really confusing, is fine by me. But I'd
rather steer away from 'bandwidth' or 'utilization' when describing uclamp and
its intention.

I like using performance requirements because it enforces what this hint
actually means.


Cheers

--
Qais Yousef