Re: [PATCH RFC 4/8] sched/cpufreq_schedutil: split utilization signals

2017-05-24 Thread Juri Lelli
Hi, On 23/05/17 21:04, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 09:53:47AM +0100, Juri Lelli wrote: > > @@ -157,14 +158,13 @@ static unsigned int get_next_freq(struct sugov_policy > > *sg_policy, > > return cpufreq_driver_resolve_freq(policy, freq); > > } > > > > -static void

Re: [PATCH RFC 4/8] sched/cpufreq_schedutil: split utilization signals

2017-05-24 Thread Juri Lelli
Hi, On 23/05/17 21:04, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 09:53:47AM +0100, Juri Lelli wrote: > > @@ -157,14 +158,13 @@ static unsigned int get_next_freq(struct sugov_policy > > *sg_policy, > > return cpufreq_driver_resolve_freq(policy, freq); > > } > > > > -static void

Re: [PATCH RFC 4/8] sched/cpufreq_schedutil: split utilization signals

2017-05-24 Thread Juri Lelli
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

Re: [PATCH RFC 4/8] sched/cpufreq_schedutil: split utilization signals

2017-05-24 Thread Juri Lelli
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

Re: [PATCH RFC 4/8] sched/cpufreq_schedutil: split utilization signals

2017-05-24 Thread Peter Zijlstra
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

Re: [PATCH RFC 4/8] sched/cpufreq_schedutil: split utilization signals

2017-05-24 Thread Peter Zijlstra
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

Re: [PATCH RFC 4/8] sched/cpufreq_schedutil: split utilization signals

2017-05-23 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
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

Re: [PATCH RFC 4/8] sched/cpufreq_schedutil: split utilization signals

2017-05-23 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
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

Re: [PATCH RFC 4/8] sched/cpufreq_schedutil: split utilization signals

2017-05-23 Thread Peter Zijlstra
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

Re: [PATCH RFC 4/8] sched/cpufreq_schedutil: split utilization signals

2017-05-23 Thread Peter Zijlstra
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

Re: [PATCH RFC 4/8] sched/cpufreq_schedutil: split utilization signals

2017-05-23 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 09:53:47AM +0100, Juri Lelli wrote: > @@ -157,14 +158,13 @@ static unsigned int get_next_freq(struct sugov_policy > *sg_policy, > return cpufreq_driver_resolve_freq(policy, freq); > } > > -static void sugov_get_util(unsigned long *util, unsigned long *max) >

Re: [PATCH RFC 4/8] sched/cpufreq_schedutil: split utilization signals

2017-05-23 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 09:53:47AM +0100, Juri Lelli wrote: > @@ -157,14 +158,13 @@ static unsigned int get_next_freq(struct sugov_policy > *sg_policy, > return cpufreq_driver_resolve_freq(policy, freq); > } > > -static void sugov_get_util(unsigned long *util, unsigned long *max) >

[PATCH RFC 4/8] sched/cpufreq_schedutil: split utilization signals

2017-05-23 Thread Juri Lelli
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()

[PATCH RFC 4/8] sched/cpufreq_schedutil: split utilization signals

2017-05-23 Thread Juri Lelli
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()