Re: [PATCH v2 08/12] sched/core: uclamp: extend cpu's cgroup controller
From: Joel Fernandes
Date: Thu Jul 26 2018 - 20:39:24 EST
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 06:29:02AM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Patrick.
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 06:22:15PM +0100, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> > However, the "best effort" bandwidth control we have for CFS and RT
> > can be further improved if, instead of just looking at time spent on
> > CPUs, we provide some more hints to the scheduler to know at which
> > min/max "MIPS" we want to consume the (best effort) time we have been
> > allocated on a CPU.
> > Such a simple extension is still quite useful to satisfy many use-case
> > we have, mainly on mobile systems, like the ones I've described in the
> > "Newcomer's Short Abstract (Updated)"
> > section of the cover letter:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20180716082906.6061-1-patrick.bellasi@xxxxxxx/T/#u
> So, that's all completely fine but then let's please not give it a
> name which doesn't quite match what it does. We can just call it
> e.g. cpufreq range control.
But then what name can one give it if it does more than one thing, like
task-placement and CPU frequency control?
It doesn't make sense to name it cpufreq IMHO. Its a clamp on the utilization
of the task which can be used for many purposes.