On 08-03-18, 11:29, Claudio Scordino wrote:
> When the SCHED_DEADLINE scheduling class increases the CPU utilization,
> we should not wait for the rate limit, otherwise we may miss some
> deadline.
> 
> Tests using rt-app on Exynos5422 with up to 10 SCHED_DEADLINE tasks have
> shown reductions of even 10% of deadline misses with a negligible
> increase of energy consumption (measured through Baylibre Cape).
> 
> Signed-off-by: Claudio Scordino <[email protected]>
> CC: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
> CC: Patrick Bellasi <[email protected]>
> CC: Dietmar Eggemann <[email protected]>
> CC: Morten Rasmussen <[email protected]>
> CC: Juri Lelli <[email protected]>
> CC: Viresh Kumar <[email protected]>
> CC: Vincent Guittot <[email protected]>
> CC: Todd Kjos <[email protected]>
> CC: Joel Fernandes <[email protected]>
> CC: [email protected]
> CC: [email protected]
> ---
> Changes from v2:
>  - Rate limit ignored also in case of "fast switch"
>  - Specific routine added
> ---
> Changes from v1:
>  - Logic moved from sugov_should_update_freq() to
>    sugov_update_single()/_shared() to not duplicate data structures
>  - Rate limit not ignored in case of "fast switch"
> ---
>  kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c 
> b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> index 7936f54..13f9cce 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> @@ -260,6 +260,17 @@ static bool sugov_cpu_is_busy(struct sugov_cpu *sg_cpu)
>  static inline bool sugov_cpu_is_busy(struct sugov_cpu *sg_cpu) { return 
> false; }
>  #endif /* CONFIG_NO_HZ_COMMON */
>  
> +/*
> + * Make sugov_should_update_freq() ignore the rate limit when DL
> + * has increased the utilization.
> + */
> +static inline
> +void set_dl_rate_limit(struct sugov_cpu *sg_cpu, struct sugov_policy 
> *sg_policy)

Maybe it could be renamed as ignore_dl_rate_limit() ? Lets see what others have
to say. But looks fine otherwise.

Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <[email protected]>

-- 
viresh

Reply via email to