Re: [RFC PATCH v3 0/6] sched/cpufreq: Make schedutil energy aware

From: Peter Zijlstra
Date: Fri Oct 18 2019 - 04:00:10 EST


On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 09:44:44AM +0200, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> On 17/10/2019 16:11, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 12:11:16PM +0100, Quentin Perret wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > It only boosts when 'rq->cfs.avg.util' increases while
> > 'rq->cfs.avg.util_est.enqueued' remains unchanged (and util > util_est
> > obv).
> >
> > This condition can be true for select_task_rq_fair(), because that is
> > ran before we do enqueue_task_fair() (for obvious raisins).
> >
> >>> I'm still thinking about the exact means you're using to raise C; that
> >>> is, the 'util - util_est' as cost_margin. It hurts my brain still.
> >>
> >> +1 ...
> >
> > cost_i = capacity_i / power_i ; for the i-th OPP
>
> I get confused by this definition. efficiency=capacity/power but the
> cs->cost value used in em_pd_get_higher_freq() is defined as
>
> cs_cost = cs->power * cpu_max_freq / cs->freq [energy_model.h]

Well, chalk that up to confusion inspired by the Changelog of patch 1.

Let me redo it with that formula then.