[PATCH v2 6/9] arm, arm64: factorize common cpu capacity default code

<will.dea...@arm.com> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gre...@linuxfoundation.org> Signed-off-by: Juri Lelli <juri.le...@arm.com> --- Changes from v1: - keep the original GPLv2 header --- arch/arm/Kconfig | 1 + arch/arm/kernel/topology.c | 213 ++

[PATCH v2 6/9] arm, arm64: factorize common cpu capacity default code

additions. Suggested-by: Will Deacon Suggested-by: Mark Rutland Suggested-by: Catalin Marinas Cc: Russell King Cc: Catalin Marinas Cc: Will Deacon Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman Signed-off-by: Juri Lelli --- Changes from v1: - keep the original GPLv2 header --- arch/arm/Kconfig | 1

[PATCH v2 9/9] arm,arm64,drivers: add a prefix to drivers arch_topology interfaces

interfaces. Signed-off-by: Juri Lelli <juri.le...@arm.com> --- arch/arm/kernel/topology.c| 8 arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c | 4 ++-- drivers/base/arch_topology.c | 20 ++-- include/linux/arch_topology.h | 8 4 files changed, 20 insertions(

[PATCH v2 9/9] arm,arm64,drivers: add a prefix to drivers arch_topology interfaces

interfaces. Signed-off-by: Juri Lelli --- arch/arm/kernel/topology.c| 8 arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c | 4 ++-- drivers/base/arch_topology.c | 20 ++-- include/linux/arch_topology.h | 8 4 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-) diff --git

[PATCH v2 8/9] arm,arm64,drivers: move externs in a new header file

Create a new header file (include/linux/arch_topology.h) and put there declarations of interfaces used by arm, arm64 and drivers code. Signed-off-by: Juri Lelli <juri.le...@arm.com> --- arch/arm/kernel/topology.c| 7 +-- arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c | 4 +--- driver

[PATCH v2 8/9] arm,arm64,drivers: move externs in a new header file

Create a new header file (include/linux/arch_topology.h) and put there declarations of interfaces used by arm, arm64 and drivers code. Signed-off-by: Juri Lelli --- arch/arm/kernel/topology.c| 7 +-- arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c | 4 +--- drivers/base/arch_topology.c | 1 + include

[PATCH v2 5/9] arm64: remove wrong CONFIG_PROC_SYSCTL ifdef

8f185d8af4 ('arm64: add sysfs cpu_capacity attribute') Signed-off-by: Juri Lelli <juri.le...@arm.com> --- arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c | 2 -- 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c index 655e65f38f31..565dd69888cc 100644

[PATCH v2 5/9] arm64: remove wrong CONFIG_PROC_SYSCTL ifdef

The sysfs cpu_capacity entry for each CPU has nothing to do with PROC_FS, nor it's in /proc/sys path. Remove such ifdef. Cc: Will Deacon Cc: Catalin Marinas Reported-and-suggested-by: Sudeep Holla Fixes: be8f185d8af4 ('arm64: add sysfs cpu_capacity attribute') Signed-off-by: Juri Lelli

[PATCH v2 7/9] arm,arm64,drivers: reduce scope of cap_parsing_failed

) means cap_from _dt is set to false. For arm64 we can simply check if raw_capacity points to something, which is not if capacity parsing has failed. Suggested-by: Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmus...@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Juri Lelli <juri.le...@arm.com> --- arch/arm/kernel/topology.c |

[PATCH v2 7/9] arm,arm64,drivers: reduce scope of cap_parsing_failed

) means cap_from _dt is set to false. For arm64 we can simply check if raw_capacity points to something, which is not if capacity parsing has failed. Suggested-by: Morten Rasmussen Signed-off-by: Juri Lelli --- arch/arm/kernel/topology.c | 3 +-- arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c | 5 + drivers

Re: [PATCH 0/7] Fix issues and factorize arm/arm64 capacity information code

Hi Catalin, On 30/01/17 17:51, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 12:29:01PM +0000, Juri Lelli wrote: > > I'd need more advice on this set, especially on how and if patch 6 could > > fly. > > Since you got some comments and said that you are going to fix them

Re: [PATCH 0/7] Fix issues and factorize arm/arm64 capacity information code

Hi Catalin, On 30/01/17 17:51, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 12:29:01PM +0000, Juri Lelli wrote: > > I'd need more advice on this set, especially on how and if patch 6 could > > fly. > > Since you got some comments and said that you are going to fix them

Re: [PATCH 0/7] Fix issues and factorize arm/arm64 capacity information code

Hi, ping. I'd need more advice on this set, especially on how and if patch 6 could fly. Thanks, - Juri On 19/01/17 14:37, Juri Lelli wrote: > Hi, > > arm and arm64 topology.c share a lot of code related to parsing of capacity > information. This set of patches proposes a sol

Re: [PATCH 0/7] Fix issues and factorize arm/arm64 capacity information code

Hi, ping. I'd need more advice on this set, especially on how and if patch 6 could fly. Thanks, - Juri On 19/01/17 14:37, Juri Lelli wrote: > Hi, > > arm and arm64 topology.c share a lot of code related to parsing of capacity > information. This set of patches proposes a sol

Re: [PATCH 6/7] arm, arm64: factorize common cpu capacity default code

Hi Dietmar, On 19/01/17 16:00, Dietmar Eggemann wrote: > On 19/01/17 14:37, Juri Lelli wrote: > > arm and arm64 share lot of code relative to parsing CPU capacity > > information from DT, using that information for appropriate scaling and > > exposing a sysfs interface fo

Re: [PATCH 6/7] arm, arm64: factorize common cpu capacity default code

Hi Dietmar, On 19/01/17 16:00, Dietmar Eggemann wrote: > On 19/01/17 14:37, Juri Lelli wrote: > > arm and arm64 share lot of code relative to parsing CPU capacity > > information from DT, using that information for appropriate scaling and > > exposing a sysfs interface fo

Re: [PATCH 6/7] arm, arm64: factorize common cpu capacity default code

Hi, On 19/01/17 14:53, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 02:37:56PM +0000, Juri Lelli wrote: > > +extern unsigned long > > +arch_scale_cpu_capacity(struct sched_domain *sd, int cpu); > > +extern void set_capacity_scale(unsigned int cpu, u

Re: [PATCH 6/7] arm, arm64: factorize common cpu capacity default code

Hi, On 19/01/17 14:53, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 02:37:56PM +0000, Juri Lelli wrote: > > +extern unsigned long > > +arch_scale_cpu_capacity(struct sched_domain *sd, int cpu); > > +extern void set_capacity_scale(unsigned int cpu, u

[PATCH 6/7] arm, arm64: factorize common cpu capacity default code

<will.dea...@arm.com> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gre...@linuxfoundation.org> Signed-off-by: Juri Lelli <juri.le...@arm.com> --- arch/arm/Kconfig | 1 + arch/arm/kernel/topology.c | 213 ++ arch/arm64/Kconfig

[PATCH 6/7] arm, arm64: factorize common cpu capacity default code

additions. Suggested-by: Will Deacon Suggested-by: Mark Rutland Suggested-by: Catalin Marinas Cc: Russell King Cc: Catalin Marinas Cc: Will Deacon Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman Signed-off-by: Juri Lelli --- arch/arm/Kconfig | 1 + arch/arm/kernel/topology.c | 213

[PATCH 7/7] arm,arm64,drivers: reduce scope of cap_parsing_failed

Reduce the scope of cap_parsing_failed (making it static in drivers/base/arch_topology.c) by slightly changing {arm,arm64} DT parsing code. Suggested-by: Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmus...@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Juri Lelli <juri.le...@arm.com> --- arch/arm/kernel/topology.c |

[PATCH 7/7] arm,arm64,drivers: reduce scope of cap_parsing_failed

Reduce the scope of cap_parsing_failed (making it static in drivers/base/arch_topology.c) by slightly changing {arm,arm64} DT parsing code. Suggested-by: Morten Rasmussen Signed-off-by: Juri Lelli --- arch/arm/kernel/topology.c | 3 +-- arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c | 5 + drivers/base

[PATCH 5/7] arm64: remove wrong CONFIG_PROC_SYSCTL ifdef

8f185d8af4 ('arm64: add sysfs cpu_capacity attribute') Signed-off-by: Juri Lelli <juri.le...@arm.com> --- arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c | 2 -- 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c index 23e9e13bd2aa..62b370388d72 100644

[PATCH 5/7] arm64: remove wrong CONFIG_PROC_SYSCTL ifdef

The sysfs cpu_capacity entry for each CPU has nothing to do with PROC_FS, nor it's in /proc/sys path. Remove such ifdef. Cc: Will Deacon Cc: Catalin Marinas Reported-and-suggested-by: Sudeep Holla Fixes: be8f185d8af4 ('arm64: add sysfs cpu_capacity attribute') Signed-off-by: Juri Lelli

[PATCH 4/7] arm: remove wrong CONFIG_PROC_SYSCTL ifdef

ty attribute') Signed-off-by: Juri Lelli <juri.le...@arm.com> --- arch/arm/kernel/topology.c | 2 -- 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c b/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c index b439f7fff86b..c760a321935b 100644 --- a/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c +++ b/arch/arm

[PATCH 0/7] Fix issues and factorize arm/arm64 capacity information code

Juri Lelli (7): Documentation: arm: fix wrong reference number in DT definition Documentation/ABI: add information about cpu_capacity arm: fix return value of parse_cpu_capacity arm: remove wrong CONFIG_PROC_SYSCTL ifdef arm64: remove wrong CONFIG_PROC_SYSCTL ifdef arm, arm64

[PATCH 4/7] arm: remove wrong CONFIG_PROC_SYSCTL ifdef

The sysfs cpu_capacity entry for each CPU has nothing to do with PROC_FS, nor it's in /proc/sys path. Remove such ifdef. Cc: Russell King Reported-and-suggested-by: Sudeep Holla Fixes: 7e5930aaef5d ('ARM: 8622/3: add sysfs cpu_capacity attribute') Signed-off-by: Juri Lelli --- arch/arm

[PATCH 0/7] Fix issues and factorize arm/arm64 capacity information code

Juri Lelli (7): Documentation: arm: fix wrong reference number in DT definition Documentation/ABI: add information about cpu_capacity arm: fix return value of parse_cpu_capacity arm: remove wrong CONFIG_PROC_SYSCTL ifdef arm64: remove wrong CONFIG_PROC_SYSCTL ifdef arm, arm64

[PATCH 2/7] Documentation/ABI: add information about cpu_capacity

/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu#/cpu_capacity describe information about CPUs heterogeneity (ref. to Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/ cpu-capacity.txt). Add such description. Signed-off-by: Juri Lelli <juri.le...@arm.com> --- Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-devices-system-cpu | 7

[PATCH 2/7] Documentation/ABI: add information about cpu_capacity

/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu#/cpu_capacity describe information about CPUs heterogeneity (ref. to Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/ cpu-capacity.txt). Add such description. Signed-off-by: Juri Lelli --- Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-devices-system-cpu | 7 +++ 1 file changed, 7

[PATCH 1/7] Documentation: arm: fix wrong reference number in DT definition

Reference to cpu capacity binding has a wrong number. Fix it. Reported-by: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieral...@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Juri Lelli <juri.le...@arm.com> --- Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cpus.txt | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

[PATCH 1/7] Documentation: arm: fix wrong reference number in DT definition

Reference to cpu capacity binding has a wrong number. Fix it. Reported-by: Lorenzo Pieralisi Signed-off-by: Juri Lelli --- Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cpus.txt | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cpus.txt b

[PATCH 3/7] arm: fix return value of parse_cpu_capacity

e26775 ('ARM: 8621/3: parse cpu capacity-dmips-mhz from DT') Signed-off-by: Juri Lelli <juri.le...@arm.com> --- arch/arm/kernel/topology.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c b/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c index ebf47d91b804..b439f7fff86b

[PATCH 3/7] arm: fix return value of parse_cpu_capacity

') Signed-off-by: Juri Lelli --- arch/arm/kernel/topology.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c b/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c index ebf47d91b804..b439f7fff86b 100644 --- a/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c @@ -165,7

Re: [RFC v4 2/6] sched/deadline: improve the tracking of active utilization

Hi, On 30/12/16 12:33, Luca Abeni wrote: > From: Luca Abeni > > This patch implements a more theoretically sound algorithm for > tracking active utilization: instead of decreasing it when a > task blocks, use a timer (the "inactive timer", named after the > "Inactive" task

Re: [RFC v4 2/6] sched/deadline: improve the tracking of active utilization

Hi, On 30/12/16 12:33, Luca Abeni wrote: > From: Luca Abeni > > This patch implements a more theoretically sound algorithm for > tracking active utilization: instead of decreasing it when a > task blocks, use a timer (the "inactive timer", named after the > "Inactive" task state of the GRUB

Re: [RFC v4 0/6] CPU reclaiming for SCHED_DEADLINE

On 11/01/17 13:39, Luca Abeni wrote: > Hi Juri, > (I reply from my new email address) > > On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 12:19:51 + > Juri Lelli <juri.le...@arm.com> wrote: > [...] > > > > For example, with my taskset, with a hypothetical perfect balance > &g

Re: [RFC v4 0/6] CPU reclaiming for SCHED_DEADLINE

On 11/01/17 13:39, Luca Abeni wrote: > Hi Juri, > (I reply from my new email address) > > On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 12:19:51 + > Juri Lelli wrote: > [...] > > > > For example, with my taskset, with a hypothetical perfect balance > > > > of

Re: [RFC v4 0/6] CPU reclaiming for SCHED_DEADLINE

Hi, On 04/01/17 19:30, Luca Abeni wrote: > 2017-01-04 19:00 GMT+01:00, Daniel Bristot de Oliveira : > [...] > > Some tasks start to use more CPU time, while others seems to use less > > CPU than it was reserved for them. See the task 14926, it is using > > only

Re: [RFC v4 0/6] CPU reclaiming for SCHED_DEADLINE

Hi, On 04/01/17 19:30, Luca Abeni wrote: > 2017-01-04 19:00 GMT+01:00, Daniel Bristot de Oliveira : > [...] > > Some tasks start to use more CPU time, while others seems to use less > > CPU than it was reserved for them. See the task 14926, it is using > > only 23.8 % of the CPU,

Re: [PATCH v7 1/8] Documentation: arm: define DT cpu capacity-dmips-mhz bindings

On 12/12/16 12:40, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 03:22:45PM +0100, Juri Lelli wrote: > > [...] > > > +=== > > +5 - References > > +=== > > + > >

Re: [PATCH v7 1/8] Documentation: arm: define DT cpu capacity-dmips-mhz bindings

On 12/12/16 12:40, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 03:22:45PM +0100, Juri Lelli wrote: > > [...] > > > +=== > > +5 - References > > +=== > > + > >

Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: schedutil: add up/down frequency transition rate limits

On 21/11/16 15:17, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 01:53:08PM +0000, Juri Lelli wrote: > > On 21/11/16 13:26, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > So the limited decay would be the dominant factor in ramp-up time, > > > leaving the regular PELT period the

Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: schedutil: add up/down frequency transition rate limits

On 21/11/16 15:17, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 01:53:08PM +0000, Juri Lelli wrote: > > On 21/11/16 13:26, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > So the limited decay would be the dominant factor in ramp-up time, > > > leaving the regular PELT period the

Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: schedutil: add up/down frequency transition rate limits

On 21/11/16 15:43, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 02:37:27PM +0000, Juri Lelli wrote: > > On 21/11/16 15:17, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > Not sure I follow. So by limiting decay to the task value, the moment we > > > add it back to

Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: schedutil: add up/down frequency transition rate limits

On 21/11/16 15:43, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 02:37:27PM +0000, Juri Lelli wrote: > > On 21/11/16 15:17, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > Not sure I follow. So by limiting decay to the task value, the moment we > > > add it back to

Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: schedutil: add up/down frequency transition rate limits

On 21/11/16 13:26, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 12:14:32PM +0000, Juri Lelli wrote: > > On 21/11/16 11:19, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > So no tunables and rate limits here at all please. > > > > > > During LPC we discussed the ramp

Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: schedutil: add up/down frequency transition rate limits

On 21/11/16 13:26, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 12:14:32PM +0000, Juri Lelli wrote: > > On 21/11/16 11:19, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > So no tunables and rate limits here at all please. > > > > > > During LPC we discussed the ramp

Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: schedutil: add up/down frequency transition rate limits

On 21/11/16 11:19, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 03:38:05PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > On 17-11-16, 10:48, Viresh Kumar wrote: [...] > > > > (Background story for others from my discussion with Rafael on IRC: Rafael > > proposed that instead of this patch we can add

Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: schedutil: add up/down frequency transition rate limits

On 21/11/16 11:19, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 03:38:05PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > On 17-11-16, 10:48, Viresh Kumar wrote: [...] > > > > (Background story for others from my discussion with Rafael on IRC: Rafael > > proposed that instead of this patch we can add

Re: [PATCH v7 REPOST 8/9] arm: add sysfs cpu_capacity attribute

Hi Russell, On 03/11/16 05:28, Juri Lelli wrote: > Hi, > > apologies for the delay in replying, but I'm attending Linux Plumbers > this week. > > On 30/10/16 20:45, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 04:46:49PM +0100, Juri Lelli wrote: [

Re: [PATCH v7 REPOST 8/9] arm: add sysfs cpu_capacity attribute

Hi Russell, On 03/11/16 05:28, Juri Lelli wrote: > Hi, > > apologies for the delay in replying, but I'm attending Linux Plumbers > this week. > > On 30/10/16 20:45, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 04:46:49PM +0100, Juri Lelli wrote: [

Re: [RFC v3 2/6] Improve the tracking of active utilisation

On 10/11/16 13:15, Luca Abeni wrote: > On Thu, 10 Nov 2016 11:56:10 + > Juri Lelli <juri.le...@arm.com> wrote: > > > On 10/11/16 10:04, Juri Lelli wrote: > > > On 02/11/16 03:35, Luca Abeni wrote: > > > > On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 22:46:33 +0100 >

Re: [RFC v3 2/6] Improve the tracking of active utilisation

On 10/11/16 13:15, Luca Abeni wrote: > On Thu, 10 Nov 2016 11:56:10 + > Juri Lelli wrote: > > > On 10/11/16 10:04, Juri Lelli wrote: > > > On 02/11/16 03:35, Luca Abeni wrote: > > > > On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 22:46:33 +0100 > > > > luca abeni

Re: [RFC v3 2/6] Improve the tracking of active utilisation

On 10/11/16 10:04, Juri Lelli wrote: > On 02/11/16 03:35, Luca Abeni wrote: > > On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 22:46:33 +0100 > > luca abeni <luca.ab...@unitn.it> wrote: > > [...] > > > > > @@ -1074,6 +1161,14 @@ select_task_rq_dl(struct task_struct *p,

Re: [RFC v3 2/6] Improve the tracking of active utilisation

On 10/11/16 10:04, Juri Lelli wrote: > On 02/11/16 03:35, Luca Abeni wrote: > > On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 22:46:33 +0100 > > luca abeni wrote: > > [...] > > > > > @@ -1074,6 +1161,14 @@ select_task_rq_dl(struct task_struct *p, int &

Re: [RFC v3 2/6] Improve the tracking of active utilisation

On 02/11/16 03:35, Luca Abeni wrote: > On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 22:46:33 +0100 > luca abeni wrote: > [...] > > > > @@ -1074,6 +1161,14 @@ select_task_rq_dl(struct task_struct *p, int > > > > cpu, int sd_flag, int flags) > > > > } > > > > rcu_read_unlock(); > > > >

Re: [RFC v3 2/6] Improve the tracking of active utilisation

On 02/11/16 03:35, Luca Abeni wrote: > On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 22:46:33 +0100 > luca abeni wrote: > [...] > > > > @@ -1074,6 +1161,14 @@ select_task_rq_dl(struct task_struct *p, int > > > > cpu, int sd_flag, int flags) > > > > } > > > > rcu_read_unlock(); > > > > > > > > + rq

Re: [RFC v3 1/6] Track the active utilisation

On 08/11/16 20:09, Luca Abeni wrote: > Hi again, > > On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 18:53:09 +0000 > Juri Lelli <juri.le...@arm.com> wrote: > [...] > > > > Also, AFAIU, do_exit() works on current and the TASK_DEAD case is > > > > handled in finish_task_switch()

Re: [RFC v3 1/6] Track the active utilisation

On 08/11/16 20:09, Luca Abeni wrote: > Hi again, > > On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 18:53:09 +0000 > Juri Lelli wrote: > [...] > > > > Also, AFAIU, do_exit() works on current and the TASK_DEAD case is > > > > handled in finish_task_switch(), so I don't think we are ta

Re: [RFC v3 1/6] Track the active utilisation

On 08/11/16 19:17, Luca Abeni wrote: > Hi Juri, > > On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 17:56:35 +0000 > Juri Lelli <juri.le...@arm.com> wrote: > [...] > > > > > static void switched_to_dl(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct > > > >

Re: [RFC v3 1/6] Track the active utilisation

On 08/11/16 19:17, Luca Abeni wrote: > Hi Juri, > > On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 17:56:35 +0000 > Juri Lelli wrote: > [...] > > > > > static void switched_to_dl(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct > > > > > *p) { > > > > > + add_running_bw(>

Re: [RFC v3 1/6] Track the active utilisation

On 01/11/16 22:10, Luca Abeni wrote: > Hi Juri, > > On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 16:45:43 +0000 > Juri Lelli <juri.le...@arm.com> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > a few nitpicks on subject and changelog and a couple of questions below. > > > > Subject should be

Re: [RFC v3 1/6] Track the active utilisation

On 01/11/16 22:10, Luca Abeni wrote: > Hi Juri, > > On Tue, 1 Nov 2016 16:45:43 +0000 > Juri Lelli wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > a few nitpicks on subject and changelog and a couple of questions below. > > > > Subject should be changed to something li

Re: [PATCH] sched/rt: RT_RUNTIME_GREED sched feature

Hi Daniel, On 07/11/16 14:51, Daniel Bristot de Oliveira wrote: > On 11/07/2016 11:31 AM, Tommaso Cucinotta wrote: [...] > > -) only issue might be that, if a non-RT task wakes up after the > > unthrottle, it will have to wait, but worst-case it will have a chance > > in the next throttling

Re: [PATCH] sched/rt: RT_RUNTIME_GREED sched feature

Hi Daniel, On 07/11/16 14:51, Daniel Bristot de Oliveira wrote: > On 11/07/2016 11:31 AM, Tommaso Cucinotta wrote: [...] > > -) only issue might be that, if a non-RT task wakes up after the > > unthrottle, it will have to wait, but worst-case it will have a chance > > in the next throttling

Re: [PATCH v7 REPOST 9/9] arm64: add sysfs cpu_capacity attribute

Hi, small update to be in sync with Russell's comments on arm correspoding patch. On 17/10/16 16:46, Juri Lelli wrote: > Add a sysfs cpu_capacity attribute with which it is possible to read and > write (thus over-writing default values) CPUs capacity. This might be > useful in situati

Re: [PATCH v7 REPOST 9/9] arm64: add sysfs cpu_capacity attribute

Hi, small update to be in sync with Russell's comments on arm correspoding patch. On 17/10/16 16:46, Juri Lelli wrote: > Add a sysfs cpu_capacity attribute with which it is possible to read and > write (thus over-writing default values) CPUs capacity. This might be > useful in situati

Re: [PATCH v7 REPOST 0/9] CPUs capacity information for heterogeneous systems

Hi Catalin, On 30/10/16 14:22, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 04:46:41PM +0100, Juri Lelli wrote: > > I'm thus now assuming that everybody is OK with the patches and that they > > can > > be queued for 4.10 (we certainly need this plumbing at this point). P

Re: [PATCH v7 REPOST 0/9] CPUs capacity information for heterogeneous systems

Hi Catalin, On 30/10/16 14:22, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 04:46:41PM +0100, Juri Lelli wrote: > > I'm thus now assuming that everybody is OK with the patches and that they > > can > > be queued for 4.10 (we certainly need this plumbing at this point). P

Re: [PATCH v7 REPOST 8/9] arm: add sysfs cpu_capacity attribute

Hi, apologies for the delay in replying, but I'm attending Linux Plumbers this week. On 30/10/16 20:45, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 04:46:49PM +0100, Juri Lelli wrote: > > +#ifdef CONFIG_PROC_SYSCTL > > +#include > > +#include > &g

Re: [PATCH v7 REPOST 8/9] arm: add sysfs cpu_capacity attribute

Hi, apologies for the delay in replying, but I'm attending Linux Plumbers this week. On 30/10/16 20:45, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 04:46:49PM +0100, Juri Lelli wrote: > > +#ifdef CONFIG_PROC_SYSCTL > > +#include > > +#include > &g

Re: [RFC v3 2/6] Improve the tracking of active utilisation

Hi, On 24/10/16 16:06, Luca Abeni wrote: > This patch implements a more theoretically sound algorithm for > thracking the active utilisation: instead of decreasing it when a s/thracking/tracking/ s/the// > task blocks, use a timer (the "inactive timer", named after the > "Inactive" task state

Re: [RFC v3 2/6] Improve the tracking of active utilisation

Hi, On 24/10/16 16:06, Luca Abeni wrote: > This patch implements a more theoretically sound algorithm for > thracking the active utilisation: instead of decreasing it when a s/thracking/tracking/ s/the// > task blocks, use a timer (the "inactive timer", named after the > "Inactive" task state

Re: [RFC v3 1/6] Track the active utilisation

g mechanism implemented in this commit can be > fixed / improved by decreasing the active utilisation at the so-called > "0-lag time" instead of when the task blocks. And maybe this as well, or put it as more information about the "more theoretically sound" solution? > >

Re: [RFC v3 1/6] Track the active utilisation

g mechanism implemented in this commit can be > fixed / improved by decreasing the active utilisation at the so-called > "0-lag time" instead of when the task blocks. And maybe this as well, or put it as more information about the "more theoretically sound" solution? > &g

Re: [RFC PATCH] sched/deadline: show leftover runtime and abs deadline in /proc/*/sched

Hi, On 25/10/16 00:32, Tommaso Cucinotta wrote: > From: Tommaso Cucinotta You should probably commit from your sssup address? Also changelog is missing. You can simply put here part of your cover letter wordings. > > --- > kernel/sched/debug.c | 4 > 1 file changed, 4

Re: [RFC PATCH] sched/deadline: show leftover runtime and abs deadline in /proc/*/sched

Hi, On 25/10/16 00:32, Tommaso Cucinotta wrote: > From: Tommaso Cucinotta You should probably commit from your sssup address? Also changelog is missing. You can simply put here part of your cover letter wordings. > > --- > kernel/sched/debug.c | 4 > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) >

Re: [RFC PATCH] sched/deadline: show leftover runtime and abs deadline in /proc/-/sched

On 25/10/16 11:25, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 12:32:53AM +0200, Tommaso Cucinotta wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > this is a tiny patch providing readings of the current (leftover) > > runtime and absolute deadline in /proc/*/sched. Mostly useful for > > debugging, I heard others

Re: [RFC PATCH] sched/deadline: show leftover runtime and abs deadline in /proc/-/sched

On 25/10/16 11:25, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 12:32:53AM +0200, Tommaso Cucinotta wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > this is a tiny patch providing readings of the current (leftover) > > runtime and absolute deadline in /proc/*/sched. Mostly useful for > > debugging, I heard others

Re: About group scheduling for SCHED_DEADLINE

Hi, On 17/10/16 10:25, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 08:38:57AM +0200, luca abeni wrote: > > > > Yes, there currently is no existing schedulability analysis for > > > multi-processor EDF with random affinities (as far as I know) > > Correction: it looks like I was wrong, and

Re: About group scheduling for SCHED_DEADLINE

Hi, On 17/10/16 10:25, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 08:38:57AM +0200, luca abeni wrote: > > > > Yes, there currently is no existing schedulability analysis for > > > multi-processor EDF with random affinities (as far as I know) > > Correction: it looks like I was wrong, and

Re: [PATCH v7 REPOST 0/9] CPUs capacity information for heterogeneous systems

Hi Sudeep, On 17/10/16 17:39, Sudeep Holla wrote: > > > On 17/10/16 16:46, Juri Lelli wrote: > >Hi all, > > > >this is a repost of version 7 of "CPUs capacity information for heterogeneous > >systems" patchset [1] (please refer to previous postings to

Re: [PATCH v7 REPOST 0/9] CPUs capacity information for heterogeneous systems

Hi Sudeep, On 17/10/16 17:39, Sudeep Holla wrote: > > > On 17/10/16 16:46, Juri Lelli wrote: > >Hi all, > > > >this is a repost of version 7 of "CPUs capacity information for heterogeneous > >systems" patchset [1] (please refer to previous postings to

[PATCH v7 REPOST 3/9] arm, dts: add TC2 cpu capacity-dmips-mhz information

..@arm.com> Cc: Ian Campbell <ijc+devicet...@hellion.org.uk> Cc: Kumar Gala <ga...@codeaurora.org> Cc: Russell King <li...@arm.linux.org.uk> Cc: devicet...@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Juri Lelli <juri.le...@arm.com> Acked-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.ho...@arm.com>

[PATCH v7 REPOST 3/9] arm, dts: add TC2 cpu capacity-dmips-mhz information

Add TC2 cpu capacity information. Cc: Liviu Dudau Cc: Sudeep Holla Cc: Lorenzo Pieralisi Cc: Rob Herring Cc: Pawel Moll Cc: Mark Rutland Cc: Ian Campbell Cc: Kumar Gala Cc: Russell King Cc: devicet...@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Juri Lelli Acked-by: Sudeep Holla --- Changes from v1

[PATCH v7 REPOST 5/9] arm64, dts: add Juno cpu capacity-dmips-mhz information

Murphy <robin.mur...@arm.com> Cc: devicet...@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Juri Lelli <juri.le...@arm.com> Acked-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.ho...@arm.com> --- Changes from v1: - capacity-scale removed Changes from v4: - binding changed to capacity-dmips-mhz Changes from v6: -

[PATCH v7 REPOST 5/9] arm64, dts: add Juno cpu capacity-dmips-mhz information

...@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Juri Lelli Acked-by: Sudeep Holla --- Changes from v1: - capacity-scale removed Changes from v4: - binding changed to capacity-dmips-mhz Changes from v6: - s/bindings// in changelog --- arch/arm64/boot/dts/arm/juno.dts | 6 ++ 1 file changed, 6 insertions

[PATCH v7 REPOST 9/9] arm64: add sysfs cpu_capacity attribute

Marinas <catalin.mari...@arm.com> Cc: Will Deacon <will.dea...@arm.com> Cc: Mark Brown <broo...@kernel.org> Cc: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.ho...@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Juri Lelli <juri.le...@arm.com> --- Changes from v5: - add mutex to protect cpu_scale (as pointed out by Mo

[PATCH v7 REPOST 4/9] arm64: parse cpu capacity-dmips-mhz from DT

. Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.mari...@arm.com> Cc: Will Deacon <will.dea...@arm.com> Cc: Mark Brown <broo...@kernel.org> Cc: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.ho...@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Juri Lelli <juri.le...@arm.com> Acked-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guit...@linaro.org>

[PATCH v7 REPOST 1/9] Documentation: arm: define DT cpu capacity-dmips-mhz bindings

tazz...@free-electrons.com> Cc: devicet...@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Juri Lelli <juri.le...@arm.com> Acked-by: Rob Herring <r...@kernel.org> Acked-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guit...@linaro.org> --- Changes from v1: - removed section regarding capacity-scale - added info

[PATCH v7 REPOST 7/9] arm64, dts: add Juno r2 cpu capacity-dmips-mhz information

Murphy <robin.mur...@arm.com> Cc: devicet...@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Juri Lelli <juri.le...@arm.com> Acked-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.ho...@arm.com> --- Changes from v4: - new patch since Juno r2 dt has been merged Changes from v6: - s/bindings// in changelog --- a

[PATCH v7 REPOST 1/9] Documentation: arm: define DT cpu capacity-dmips-mhz bindings

-by: Juri Lelli Acked-by: Rob Herring Acked-by: Vincent Guittot --- Changes from v1: - removed section regarding capacity-scale - added information regarding normalization Changes from v4: - binding changed to capacity-dmips-mhz - sections and changelod updated accordingly Changes from v5

[PATCH v7 REPOST 7/9] arm64, dts: add Juno r2 cpu capacity-dmips-mhz information

...@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Juri Lelli Acked-by: Sudeep Holla --- Changes from v4: - new patch since Juno r2 dt has been merged Changes from v6: - s/bindings// in changelog --- arch/arm64/boot/dts/arm/juno-r2.dts | 6 ++ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot

[PATCH v7 REPOST 9/9] arm64: add sysfs cpu_capacity attribute

Marinas Cc: Will Deacon Cc: Mark Brown Cc: Sudeep Holla Signed-off-by: Juri Lelli --- Changes from v5: - add mutex to protect cpu_scale (as pointed out by Morten off-line) --- arch/arm64/kernel/topology.c | 73 1 file changed, 73 insertions(+) diff

[PATCH v7 REPOST 4/9] arm64: parse cpu capacity-dmips-mhz from DT

. Cc: Catalin Marinas Cc: Will Deacon Cc: Mark Brown Cc: Sudeep Holla Signed-off-by: Juri Lelli Acked-by: Vincent Guittot --- Changes from v1: - normalize w.r.t. highest capacity found in DT - bailout conditions (all-or-nothing) Changes from v4: - parsing modified to reflect change

[PATCH v7 REPOST 2/9] arm: parse cpu capacity-dmips-mhz from DT

(which gets used if arch_scale_cpu_capacity is not defined) is overwritten. Cc: Russell King <li...@arm.linux.org.uk> Signed-off-by: Juri Lelli <juri.le...@arm.com> Acked-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guit...@linaro.org> --- Changes from v1: - normalize w.r.t. highest ca

[PATCH v7 REPOST 8/9] arm: add sysfs cpu_capacity attribute

<li...@arm.linux.org.uk> Signed-off-by: Juri Lelli <juri.le...@arm.com> --- Changes from v5: - add mutex to protect cpu_scale (as pointed out by Morten off-line) --- arch/arm/kernel/topology.c | 73 ++ 1 file changed, 73 insertions(+)

[PATCH v7 REPOST 2/9] arm: parse cpu capacity-dmips-mhz from DT

(which gets used if arch_scale_cpu_capacity is not defined) is overwritten. Cc: Russell King Signed-off-by: Juri Lelli Acked-by: Vincent Guittot --- Changes from v1: - normalize w.r.t. highest capacity found in DT - bailout conditions (all-or-nothing) Changes from v4: - parsing modified

[PATCH v7 REPOST 8/9] arm: add sysfs cpu_capacity attribute

Signed-off-by: Juri Lelli --- Changes from v5: - add mutex to protect cpu_scale (as pointed out by Morten off-line) --- arch/arm/kernel/topology.c | 73 ++ 1 file changed, 73 insertions(+) diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/topology.c b/arch/arm/kernel

<    7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   >