Re: [RFC/RFT][PATCH 1/1] cpufreq: New governor using utilization data from the scheduler

[Juri Lelli]

On 26/02/16 03:36, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday, February 25, 2016 11:01:20 AM Juri Lelli wrote:

[...]

> > 
> > That is right. But, can't an higher priority class eat all the needed
> > capacity. I mean, suppose that both CFS and DL need 30% of CPU capacity
> > on the same CPU. DL wins and gets its 30% of capacity. When CFS gets to
> > run it's too late for requesting anything more (w.r.t. the same time
> > window). If we somehow aggregate requests instead, we could request 60%
> > and both classes can have their capacity to run. It seems to me that
> > this is what governors were already doing by using the 1 - idle metric.
> 
> That's interesting, because it is about a few different things at a time. :-)
> 
> So first of all the "old" governors only collect information about what
> happened in the past and make decisions on that basis (kind of in the hope
> that what happened once will happen again), while the idea behind what
> you're describing seems to be to attempt to project future needs for
> capacity and use that to make decisions (just for the very near future,
> but that should be sufficient).  If successful, that would be the most
> suitable approach IMO.
> 

Right, this is a key difference.

> Of course, the $subject patch is not aspiring to anything of that kind.
> It only uses information about current needs that's already available to
> it in a very straightforward way.
> 

But, using utilization of CFS tasks (based on PELT) has already some
notion of "future needs" (even if it is true that tasks might have
phases). And this will be true for DL as well, once we will have a
corresponding utilization signal that we can consume. I think you are
already consuming information about the future in some sense. :-)

> But there's more to it.  In the sampling, or rate-limiting if you will,
> situation you really have a window in which many things can happen and
> making a good decision at the beginning of it is important.  However, if
> you just can handle *every* request and really switch frequencies on the
> fly, then each of them may come with a "currently needed capacity" number
> and you can just give it what it asks for every time.
> 

True. Rate-limiting poses interesting problems.

> My point is that there are quite a few things to consider here and I'm
> expecting a learning process to happen before we are happy with what we
> have.  So my approach would be (and is) to start very simple and then
> add more complexity over time as needed instead of just trying to address
> every issue I can think about from the outset.
> 

I perfectly understand that, and I agree that there is value in starting
simple. I simply fear that aggregation of utilization signals will be one
of the few things that will pop out fairly soon. :-)

Best,

- Juri