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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230508160829.2756405-1-vineeth@bitbyteword.org>
 <20230509132534.09098acc@luca64> <CAO7JXPhrqKWfsp860rRmEenxARi8U2gNMGsOn4m+aKporWwBcg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230509224829.2fb547fd@nowhere> <20230509225417.61d36733@nowhere>
 <CAO7JXPhk5qbz9kmiu9WuXS+gXCt9+X8pP2c37hd9ChByLmXYjA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230510090735.68f62cd4@nowhere> <CAO7JXPg03f2YnrmzoGjfHEZZcoN55cU7uVukMw31Bw3x6nnaMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230511093711.2be82409@nowhere> <CAO7JXPiKLFLVpqDKoRdu8c2Yd4AJ_2B2UyXJxD3kJAyiJ=n0_Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230511220336.05866e80@nowhere>
In-Reply-To: <20230511220336.05866e80@nowhere>
From:   Vineeth Remanan Pillai <vineeth@bitbyteword.org>
Date:   Thu, 11 May 2023 16:40:46 -0400
Message-ID: <CAO7JXPg9K4MA7H63Num8-BHBT-Y=GQ3BnEEvaEMVKmYsXCY7Sg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sched/deadline: accurate reclaim bandwidth for GRUB
To:     luca abeni <luca.abeni@santannapisa.it>
Cc:     Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
        Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

> >
> > I felt that, since we are using sequential reclaim mentioned in the
> > paper and we isolate all parameters per-cpu(except for extra_bw) we
> > could use the "-dq = -(U/Umax) dt" equation as it was simpler than
> > equation (3).
>
> This is the part I am not sure about...
>
> Maybe the best way to go is to split the patch: first you implement (1)
> (and use div64 to remove the approximation I used), then you implement
> (3) in a second patch.
>
> Finally, if removing the max{} is really needed you can do it in a
> third patch (but I would try to go with Equation 3 before removing the
> max{})
>
Sure, I shall split the patch. Joel also suggested splitting the patch
and I was probably wrong to think that the patch was simple to be a
single patch :-).

Since equation (3) has theoretical backing, I am perfectly fine with
using it for our fix. Will have 2 patches as you suggested.

Will get the v3 out soon..

Thanks,
Vineeth