Re: [RFC PATCH v1 4/8] sched/cpufreq_schedutil: split utilization signals
From: Viresh Kumar
Date: Fri Jul 07 2017 - 04:58:57 EST
On 05-07-17, 09:59, 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 and util_dl.
> This patch does that by also changing sugov_get_util() parameter list.
> After this change, aggregation of the different signals has to be performed
> by sugov_get_util() users (so that they can decide what to do with the
> different signals).
> Suggested-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
Are you referring to this response here ?
If yes, then I don't think it was about having separate APIs, but just storing
> -static void sugov_get_util(unsigned long *util, unsigned long *max)
> +static void sugov_get_util(struct sugov_cpu *sg_cpu)
> struct rq *rq = this_rq();
> - unsigned long dl_util = (rq->dl.running_bw * SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE)
> - >> BW_SHIFT;
> - *max = arch_scale_cpu_capacity(NULL, smp_processor_id());
> + sg_cpu->max = arch_scale_cpu_capacity(NULL, smp_processor_id());
> + sg_cpu->util_cfs = rq->cfs.avg.util_avg;
> + sg_cpu->util_dl = (rq->dl.running_bw * SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE)
> + >> BW_SHIFT;
> +static unsigned long sugov_aggregate_util(struct sugov_cpu *sg_cpu)
As Joel already mentioned, I don't think we should create two separate routines