Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] sched/fair: Task placement biasing using uclamp | From | Dietmar Eggemann <> | Date | Thu, 12 Dec 2019 16:06:38 +0100 |
| |
On 11/12/2019 12:38, Valentin Schneider wrote: > Hi, > > While uclamp restrictions currently only impact schedutil's frequency > selection, it would make sense to also let them impact CPU selection in > asymmetric topologies. This would let us steer specific tasks towards > certain CPU capacities regardless of their actual utilization - I give a > few examples in patch 4. > > The first three patches are mainly cleanups, the meat of the thing is > in patches 4 and 5. > > Note that this is in the same spirit as what Patrick had proposed for EAS > on Android [1] > > [1]: https://android.googlesource.com/kernel/common/+/b61876ed122f816660fe49e0de1b7ee4891deaa2%5E%21
Reviewed-by: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com> Tested-By: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
Tested on Juno-r0 (Arm64) cpumask [0x3f] w/ big [0x06], LITTLE [0x39] [orig cpu capacity big,LITTLE: 1024,446] and rt-app
4 periodic tasks runtime/period [800/16000], per task uclamp_min/max [600,1024]
w/o uclamp: EAS puts the tasks on LITTLE CPUs [0x39] w/ uclamp: EAS puts the tasks on big CPUs [0x06]
| |