On 03-Mar 14:01, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 02-03-17, 15:45, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> > b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> > @@ -293,15 +305,29 @@ static void sugov_update_shared(struct
> > update_util_data *hook, u64 time,
> > if (curr == sg_policy->thread)
> > goto done;
> >
> > + /*
> > + * While RT/DL tasks are running we do not want FAIR tasks to
> > + * overwrite this CPU's flags, still we can update utilization and
> > + * frequency (if required/possible) to be fair with these tasks.
> > + */
> > + rt_mode = task_has_dl_policy(curr) ||
> > + task_has_rt_policy(curr) ||
> > + (flags & SCHED_CPUFREQ_RT_DL);
> > + if (rt_mode)
> > + sg_cpu->flags |= flags;
> > + else
> > + sg_cpu->flags = flags;
>
> This looks so hacked up :)
It is... a bit... :)
> Wouldn't it be better to let the scheduler tell us what all kind of tasks it
> has
> in the rq of a CPU and pass a mask of flags?
That would definitively report a more consistent view of what's going
on on each CPU.
> I think it wouldn't be difficult (or time consuming) for the
> scheduler to know that, but I am not 100% sure.
Main issue perhaps is that cpufreq_update_{util,this_cpu} are
currently called by the scheduling classes codes and not from the core
scheduler. However I agree that it should be possible to build up such
information and make it available to the scheduling classes code.
I'll have a look at that.
> IOW, the flags field in cpufreq_update_util() will represent all tasks in the
> rq, instead of just the task that is getting enqueued/dequeued..
>
> And obviously we need to get some utilization numbers for the RT and DL tasks
> going forward, switching to max isn't going to work for ever :)
Regarding this last point, there are WIP patches Juri is working on to
feed DL demands to schedutil, his presentation at last ELC partially
covers these developments:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzrcWNIneWY&index=37&list=PLbzoR-pLrL6pSlkQDW7RpnNLuxPq6WVUR
Instead, RT tasks are currently covered by an rt_avg metric which we
already know is not fitting for most purposes.
It seems that the main goal is twofold: move people to DL whenever
possible otherwise live with the go-to-max policy which is the only
sensible solution to satisfy the RT's class main goal, i.e. latency
reduction.
Of course such a go-to-max policy for all RT tasks we already know
that is going to destroy energy on many different mobile scenarios.
As a possible mitigation for that, while still being compliant with
the main RT's class goal, we recently posted the SchedTune v3
proposal:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/2/28/355
In that proposal, the simple usage of CGroups and the new capacity_max
attribute of the (existing) CPU controller should allow to define what
is the "max" value which is just enough to match the latency
constraints of a mobile application without sacrificing too much
energy.
> --
> viresh
Cheers Patrick
--
#include <best/regards.h>
Patrick Bellasi
