Re: [RFCv3 PATCH 33/48] sched: Energy-aware wake-up task placement

[Michael Turquette]

Quoting Peter Zijlstra (2015-03-26 03:41:50)
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 10:21:24AM +0000, Juri Lelli wrote:
> >  - what about other sched classes? I know that this is very premature,
> >    but I can help but thinking that we'll need to do some sort of
> >    aggregation of requests, and if we put triggers in very specialized
> >    points we might lose some of the sched classes separation
> 
> So for deadline we can do P state selection (as you're well aware) based
> on the requested utilization. Not sure what to do for fifo/rr though,
> they lack much useful information (as always).
> 
> Now if we also look ahead to things like the ACPI CPPC stuff we'll see
> that CFS and DL place different requirements on the hints. Where CFS
> would like to hint a max perf (the hardware going slower due to the code
> consisting of mostly stalls is always fine from a best effort energy
> pov), the DL stuff would like to hint a min perf, seeing how it 'needs'
> to provide a QoS.
> 
> So we either need to carry this information along in a 'generic' way
> between the various classes or put the hinting in every class.
> 
> But yes, food for thought for sure.

I am a fan of putting the hints in every class. One idea I've been
considering is that each sched class could have a small, simple cpufreq
governor that expresses its constraints (max for cfs, min qos for dl)
and then the cpufreq core Does The Right Thing.

This would be a multi-governor approach, which requires some surgery to
cpufreq core code, but I like the modularity and maintainability of it
more than having one big super governor that has to satisfy every need.

Regards,
Mike
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/