Hi,
On 07/07/17 14:28, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 05-07-17, 09:59, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > To be able to treat utilization signals of different scheduling classes
> > in different ways (e.g., CFS signal might be stale while DEADLINE signal
> > is never stale by design) we need to split sugov_cpu::util signal in two:
> > util_cfs and util_dl.
> >
> > This patch does that by also changing sugov_get_util() parameter list.
> > After this change, aggregation of the different signals has to be performed
> > by sugov_get_util() users (so that they can decide what to do with the
> > different signals).
> >
> > Suggested-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wyso...@intel.com>
>
> Are you referring to this response here ?
>
> https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=149095102600847&w=2
>
Yep.
> If yes, then I don't think it was about having separate APIs, but just storing
> util_cfs/dl separately.
>
> > -static void sugov_get_util(unsigned long *util, unsigned long *max)
> > +static void sugov_get_util(struct sugov_cpu *sg_cpu)
> > {
> > struct rq *rq = this_rq();
> > - unsigned long dl_util = (rq->dl.running_bw * SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE)
> > - >> BW_SHIFT;
> >
> > - *max = arch_scale_cpu_capacity(NULL, smp_processor_id());
> > + sg_cpu->max = arch_scale_cpu_capacity(NULL, smp_processor_id());
> > + sg_cpu->util_cfs = rq->cfs.avg.util_avg;
> > + sg_cpu->util_dl = (rq->dl.running_bw * SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE)
> > + >> BW_SHIFT;
> > +}
> >
> > +static unsigned long sugov_aggregate_util(struct sugov_cpu *sg_cpu)
>
> As Joel already mentioned, I don't think we should create two separate
> routines
> here.
>
Mmm, it makes retrieving of utilization in sugov_update_shared and
aggregating values for the domain in sugov_next_freq_shared cleaner,
IMHO.
Thanks,
- Juri
