Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-20901-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240108134843.429769-1-vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
 <20240108134843.429769-5-vincent.guittot@linaro.org> <0a64731f-f6fa-4382-a5cb-a29061eff2d6@arm.com>
In-Reply-To: <0a64731f-f6fa-4382-a5cb-a29061eff2d6@arm.com>
From: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2024 14:33:00 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKfTPtCZVCB1yoocEUjLweodqkLVsF-+WwJzYruD17b0YKxS5A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/5] sched: Rename arch_update_thermal_pressure into arch_update_hw_pressure
To: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
Cc: linux@armlinux.org.uk, catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org, 
	sudeep.holla@arm.com, rafael@kernel.org, viresh.kumar@linaro.org, 
	agross@kernel.org, andersson@kernel.org, konrad.dybcio@linaro.org, 
	mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, juri.lelli@redhat.com, 
	rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de, bristot@redhat.com, 
	vschneid@redhat.com, lukasz.luba@arm.com, rui.zhang@intel.com, 
	mhiramat@kernel.org, daniel.lezcano@linaro.org, amit.kachhap@gmail.com, 
	corbet@lwn.net, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, 
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, 
	linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, 
	linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, 
	qyousef@layalina.io
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Tue, 9 Jan 2024 at 12:56, Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com> wrote:
>
> On 08/01/2024 14:48, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > Now that cpufreq provides a pressure value to the scheduler, rename
>
> I.e. that thermal (e.g. IPA governor) switches from average
> (rq->avg_(thermal/hw).load_avg) (1) to instantenous (cpu_pressure) (2).
> I rememeber a related dicussion during LPC 2018 :-)
>
> > arch_update_thermal_pressure into HW pressure to reflect that it returns
> > a pressure applied by HW (i.e. with a high frequency change) and not
> > always related to thermal mitigation but also generated by max current
> > limitation as an example. Such high frequency signal needs filtering to be
> > smoothed and provide an value that reflects the average available capacity
> > into the scheduler time scale.
>
> So 'drivers/cpufreq/qcom-cpufreq-hw.c' is the only user of (1) right
> now. Are we expecting more users here? If this stays the only user,
> maybe it can do the averages by itself and we can completely switch to (2)?

Yes I expect more users for this high frequency change which is
typically 1ms and below. And I prefer to keep PELT averaging
calculation inside scheduler instead of letting driver doing their own
averaging which will be most of the time not aligned with what
scheduler wants

>
> [...]
>