lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Feb]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] cpufreq: schedutil: rate limits for SCHED_DEADLINE
Hi,

On 09/02/18 11:36, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, February 9, 2018 9:02:34 AM CET Claudio Scordino wrote:
> > Hi Viresh,
> >
> > Il 09/02/2018 04:51, Viresh Kumar ha scritto:
> > > On 08-02-18, 18:01, Claudio Scordino wrote:
> > >> When the SCHED_DEADLINE scheduling class increases the CPU utilization,
> > >> we should not wait for the rate limit, otherwise we may miss some deadline.
> > >>
> > >> Tests using rt-app on Exynos5422 have shown reductions of about 10% of deadline
> > >> misses for tasks with low RT periods.
> > >>
> > >> The patch applies on top of the one recently proposed by Peter to drop the
> > >> SCHED_CPUFREQ_* flags.
> > >>
>
> [cut]
>
> >
> > >
> > > Is it possible to (somehow) check here if the DL tasks will miss
> > > deadline if we continue to run at current frequency? And only ignore
> > > rate-limit if that is the case ?

Isn't it always the case? Utilization associated to DL tasks is given by
what the user said it's needed to meet a task deadlines (admission
control). If that task wakes up and we realize that adding its
utilization contribution is going to require a frequency change, we
should _theoretically_ always do it, or it will be too late. Now, user
might have asked for a bit more than what strictly required (this is
usually the case to compensate for discrepancies between theory and real
world, e.g. hw transition limits), but I don't think there is a way to
know "how much". :/

Thanks,

- Juri

> >
> > I need to think further about it.
>
> That would be my approach FWIW.
>
> Increasing the frequency beyond what is necessary means wasting energy
> in any case.
>
> Thanks,
> Rafael
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-02-09 11:53    [W:0.144 / U:5.824 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site