Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 29 May 2018 09:40:09 +0100 | From | Quentin Perret <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 05/10] cpufreq/schedutil: get max utilization |
| |
Hi Vincent,
On Friday 25 May 2018 at 15:12:26 (+0200), Vincent Guittot wrote: > Now that we have both the dl class bandwidth requirement and the dl class > utilization, we can use the max of the 2 values when agregating the > utilization of the CPU. > > Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org> > --- > kernel/sched/sched.h | 6 +++++- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/sched.h b/kernel/sched/sched.h > index 4526ba6..0eb07a8 100644 > --- a/kernel/sched/sched.h > +++ b/kernel/sched/sched.h > @@ -2194,7 +2194,11 @@ static inline void cpufreq_update_util(struct rq *rq, unsigned int flags) {} > #ifdef CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_GOV_SCHEDUTIL > static inline unsigned long cpu_util_dl(struct rq *rq) > { > - return (rq->dl.running_bw * SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE) >> BW_SHIFT; > + unsigned long util = (rq->dl.running_bw * SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE) >> BW_SHIFT; > + > + util = max_t(unsigned long, util, READ_ONCE(rq->avg_dl.util_avg));
Would it make sense to use a UTIL_EST version of that signal here ? I don't think that would make sense for the RT class with your patch-set since you only really use the blocked part of the signal for RT IIUC, but would that work for DL ? > + > + return util; > } > > static inline unsigned long cpu_util_cfs(struct rq *rq) > -- > 2.7.4 >
| |