Hi, On 24/05/17 09:01, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 01:30:36AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Tuesday, May 23, 2017 09:29:27 PM Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 09:53:47AM +0100, 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). > > > > > > So what I don't see this patch doing; and I don't remember if cpufreq is > > > ready for this at all, is set the util_dl as min/guaranteed freq and > > > util_cfs+util_dl as requested freq. > > > > I'm totally unsure what you mean here. > > I was thinking of the CPPC/HWP stuff, where you can set different > frequencies with different levels of guarantees. > > We'd want to set util_dl as the minimum (guaranteed) performance, and > util_dl + util_cfs as the desired performance level. > > > cpufreq doesn't have a "guaranteed frequency" concept of any sort right now. > > I was afraid of that ;-) I think we want a comment in the code stating > that this is the desired goal though. Then once cpufreq is ready to deal > with it we can change it..
Sure, I can add that in next version. Thanks, - Juri