Hi Qais,
On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 16:56:37 +0200, Qais Yousef <qais.you...@arm.com>
wrote...
>> > +sched_util_clamp_min_rt_default:
>> > +================================
>> > +
>> > +By default Linux is tuned for performance. Which means that RT tasks
>> > always run
>> > +at the highest frequency and most capable (highest capacity) CPU (in
>> > +heterogeneous systems).
>> > +
>> > +Uclamp achieves this by setting the requested uclamp.min of all RT tasks
>> > to
>> > +SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE (1024) by default, which effectively boosts the
>> > tasks to
>> > +run at the highest frequency and biases them to run on the biggest CPU.
>> > +
>> > +This knob allows admins to change the default behavior when uclamp is
>> > being
>> > +used. In battery powered devices particularly, running at the maximum
>> > +capacity and frequency will increase energy consumption and shorten the
>> > battery
>> > +life.
>> > +
>> > +This knob is only effective for RT tasks which the user hasn't modified
>> > their
>> > +requested uclamp.min value via sched_setattr() syscall.
>> > +
>> > +This knob will not escape the constraint imposed by sched_util_clamp_min
>> > +defined above.
>>
>> Perhaps it's worth to specify that this value is going to be clamped by
>> the values above? Otherwise it's a bit ambiguous to know what happen
>> when it's bigger than schedu_util_clamp_min.
>
> Hmm for me that sentence says exactly what you're asking for.
>
> So what you want is
>
> s/will not escape the constraint imposed by/will be clamped by/
>
> ?
>
> I'm not sure if this will help if the above is already ambiguous. Maybe if
> I explicitly say
>
> ..will not escape the *range* constrained imposed by..
>
> sched_util_clamp_min is already defined as a range constraint, so hopefully it
> should hit the mark better now?
Right, that also can work.
>>
>> > +Any modification is applied lazily on the next opportunity the scheduler
>> > needs
>> > +to calculate the effective value of uclamp.min of the task.
>> ^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> This is also an implementation detail, I would remove it.
>
> The idea is that this value is not updated 'immediately'/synchronously. So
> currently RUNNING tasks will not see the effect, which could generate
> confusion
> when users trip over it. IMO giving an idea of how it's updated will help with
> expectation of the users. I doubt any will care, but I think it's an important
> behavior element that is worth conveying and documenting. I'd be happy to
> reword it if necessary.
Right, I agree on giving an hint on the lazy update. What I was pointing
out was mainly the reference to the 'effective' value. Maybe we can just
drop that word.
> I have this now
>
> """
> 984 This knob will not escape the range constraint imposed by
> sched_util_clamp_min
> 985 defined above.
> 986
> 987 For example if
> 988
> 989 sched_util_clamp_min_rt_default = 800
> 990 sched_util_clamp_min = 600
> 991
> 992 Then the boost will be clamped to 600 because 800 is outside of the
> permissible
> 993 range of [0:600]. This could happen for instance if a powersave mode will
> 994 restrict all boosts temporarily by modifying sched_util_clamp_min. As
> soon as
> 995 this restriction is lifted, the requested sched_util_clamp_min_rt_default
> 996 will take effect.
> 997
> 998 Any modification is applied lazily to currently running tasks and should
> be
> 999 visible by the next wakeup.
> """
That's better IMHO, would just slightly change the last sentence to:
Any modification is applied lazily to tasks and is effective
starting from their next wakeup.
Best,
Patrick
