Re: [PATCH] sched/fair: Introduce fits_capacity()

[Quentin Perret]

On Tuesday 18 Jun 2019 at 10:10:48 (+0200), Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 9:47 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On 18-06-19, 09:26, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 5:12 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > +Rafael
> > > >
> > > > On 17-06-19, 17:02, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Jun 06, 2019 at 08:22:04AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > > > > > Hmm, even if the values are same currently I am not sure if we want
> > > > > > the same for ever. I will write a patch for it though, if Peter/Rafael
> > > > > > feel the same as you.
> > > > >
> > > > > Is it really the same variable or just two numbers that happen to be the
> > > > > same?
> > > >
> > > > In both cases we are trying to keep the load under 80% of what can be supported.
> > > > But I am not sure of the answer to your question.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe Rafael knows :)
> > >
> > > Which variable?
> >
> > Schedutil multiplies the target frequency by 1.25 (20% more capacity eventually)
> > to get enough room for more load and similar thing is done in fair.c at several
> > places to see if the new task can fit in a runqueue without overloading it.
> 
> For the schedutil part, see the changelog of the commit that introduced it:
> 
> 9bdcb44e391d cpufreq: schedutil: New governor based on scheduler
> utilization data
> 
> As for the other places, I don't know about the exact reasoning.
> 
> > Quentin suggested to use common code for this calculation and that is what is
> > getting discussed here.
> 
> I guess if the rationale for the formula is the same in all cases, it
> would be good to consolidate that code and document the rationale
> while at it.

I _think_ it is, but I guess others could correct me if this is
incorrect.

When choosing a CPU or a frequency using a util value, we look for a
capacity that will provide us with 20% of idle time. And in both case we
use the same threshold, just hardcoded in different places. Hence the
suggestion to unify things.

I hope that makes sense :-)

Thanks,
Quentin