Re: [PATCH v4] sched: Provide USF for the portable equipment.

[Qais Yousef]

On 08/05/20 19:13, Dongdong Yang wrote:
> Appreciate Qais for your clamp implementation. I would like to add traces
> for uclamp_rq_util_with and feedback you if I run into any issues.

Thanks.

FYI, top posting in LKML is frowned upon. Please put your answer underneath the
quoted text.

> 
> The util would not be adjusted as soon as FB screen on notification be
> received by USF from kernel level if it is set by sched_usf_non_ux, no
> matter whether screen on or off. However, sched_util_clamp_min/max have not
> been recovered until user space screen on detection. The screen on response
> would not be in time for the sensitive user when many background tasks are
> running.  Whether the kernel module could also
> set sched_util_clamp_min/max?

For boosting, are you just changing the sysctl or are you actively using
sched_setattr() to boost tasks too?

Please have a look at the documentation for the sysctl interface.

	https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git/tree/Documentation/admin-guide/sysctl/kernel.rst?h=sched/core#n1065

In summary, they just control the _allowed_ levels. So you can use it to
cap/throttle the maximum performance level the system is running at. But you
can't use it to boost the whole system. You must use the sched_setattr() to
boost important tasks individually or if all the tasks are in a cgroup you
can use that. For cgroup interface there's a caveat. If you want to use it
let me know so I can explain how boosting would work there.

I advise to use the sched_setattr() interface to target and boost those
important tasks only. You can as well be smart and target all the background
tasks to cap them via sched_setattr(). In this case you wouldn't have to modify
the sysctl_sched_util_clamp_min/max.

I don't see uclamp being a suitable interface for in-kernel users. PM_QOS is
more suitable in my opinion for in-kernel users if you want to impact the
overall system performance.

I might have misunderstood what you were saying above. If so, can you please
rephrase?

Thanks

--
Qais Yousef