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, 11 Jul 2023 18:58:14 +0100
From:   Qais Yousef <qyousef@layalina.io>
To:     Kajetan Puchalski <kajetan.puchalski@arm.com>
Cc:     rafael@kernel.org, daniel.lezcano@linaro.org, lukasz.luba@arm.com,
        Dietmar.Eggemann@arm.com, dsmythies@telus.net,
        yu.chen.surf@gmail.com, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] cpuidle: teo: Introduce util-awareness
Message-ID: <20230711175814.zfavcn7xn3ia5va4@airbuntu>
References: <20230105145159.1089531-1-kajetan.puchalski@arm.com>
 <20230105145159.1089531-3-kajetan.puchalski@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230105145159.1089531-3-kajetan.puchalski@arm.com>
Precedence: bulk

Hi Kajetan

On 01/05/23 14:51, Kajetan Puchalski wrote:

[...]

> @@ -510,9 +598,11 @@ static int teo_enable_device(struct cpuidle_driver *drv,
>  			     struct cpuidle_device *dev)
>  {
>  	struct teo_cpu *cpu_data = per_cpu_ptr(&teo_cpus, dev->cpu);
> +	unsigned long max_capacity = arch_scale_cpu_capacity(dev->cpu);
>  	int i;
>  
>  	memset(cpu_data, 0, sizeof(*cpu_data));
> +	cpu_data->util_threshold = max_capacity >> UTIL_THRESHOLD_SHIFT;

Given that utilization is invariant, why do we set the threshold based on
cpu capacity?

I'm not sure if this is a problem, but on little cores this threshold would be
too low. Given that util is invariant - I wondered if we need to have a single
threshold for all type of CPUs instead. Have you tried something like that
while developing the patch?


Thanks

--
Qais Yousef