On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 01:54:34PM +0100, Quentin Perret wrote:
> On Friday 22 Jun 2018 at 13:37:13 (+0200), Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > That is true.. So we could limit the scaling to the case where there is
> > no idle time, something like:
> >
> > util = sg_cpu->util_cfs;
> >
> > cap_cfs = (1024 - (sg_cpu->util_rt + ...));
> > if (util == cap_cfs)
> > util = sg_cpu->max;
> >
> > That specifically handles the '0% idle -> 100% freq' case, but I don't
> > realy like edge behaviour like that. If for some reason it all doesn't
> > quite align you're left with bits.
> >
> > And the linear scaling is the next simplest thing that avoids the hard
> > boundary case.
>
> Right, so maybe we'll get something smoother by just summing the signals
> as Vincent is proposing ?
Sure, but see my previous mail just now, that has the problem of
u_{rt,dl} distoting f_{rt,dl} even when there is no u_cfs.
