On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 12:04:12PM +0100, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> On 09-Apr 10:51, Vincent Guittot wrote:

> > Peter,
> > what was your goal with adding the condition "if
> > (rq->cfs.h_nr_running)" for the aggragation of CFS utilization
> The original intent was to get rid of sched class flags, used to track
> which class has tasks runnable from within schedutil. The reason was
> to solve some misalignment between scheduler class status and
> schedutil status.
> The solution, initially suggested by Viresh, and finally proposed by
> Peter was to exploit RQ knowledges directly from within schedutil.
> The problem is that now schedutil updated depends on two information:
> utilization changes and number of RT and CFS runnable tasks.
> Thus, using cfs_rq::h_nr_running is not the problem... it's actually
> part of a much more clean solution of the code we used to have.
> The problem, IMO is that we now depend on other information which
> needs to be in sync before calling schedutil... and the patch I
> proposed is meant to make it less likely that all the information
> required are not aligned (also in the future).

Specifically, the h_nr_running test was get rid of

                if (delta_ns > TICK_NSEC) {
                        j_sg_cpu->iowait_boost = 0;
                        j_sg_cpu->iowait_boost_pending = false;
-                       j_sg_cpu->util_cfs = 0;

                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ that..

-                       if (j_sg_cpu->util_dl == 0)
-                               continue;

because that felt rather arbitrary.

Reply via email to