On Tuesday 22 Jan 2019 at 12:45:46 (+0000), Patrick Bellasi wrote:

On 22-Jan 12:13, Quentin Perret wrote:

quoted

On Tuesday 15 Jan 2019 at 10:15:08 (+0000), Patrick Bellasi wrote:

quoted

The Energy Aware Scheduler (AES) estimates the energy impact of waking

[...]

quoted

quoted

+		for_each_cpu_and(cpu, pd_mask, cpu_online_mask) {
+			cfs_util = cpu_util_next(cpu, p, dst_cpu);
+
+			/*
+			 * Busy time computation: utilization clamping is not
+			 * required since the ratio (sum_util / cpu_capacity)
+			 * is already enough to scale the EM reported power
+			 * consumption at the (eventually clamped) cpu_capacity.
+			 */

Right.

quoted

+			sum_util += schedutil_cpu_util(cpu, cfs_util, cpu_cap,
+						       ENERGY_UTIL, NULL);
+
+			/*
+			 * Performance domain frequency: utilization clamping
+			 * must be considered since it affects the selection
+			 * of the performance domain frequency.
+			 */

So that actually affects the way we deal with RT I think. I assume the
idea is to say if you don't want to reflect the RT-go-to-max-freq thing
in EAS (which is what we do now) you should set the min cap for RT to 0.
Is that correct ?

By default configuration, RT tasks still go to max when uclamp is
enabled, since they get a util_min=1024.

If we want to save power on RT tasks, we can set a smaller util_min...
but not necessarily 0. A util_min=0 for RT tasks means to use just
cpu_util_rt() for that class.

Ah, sorry, I guess my message was misleading. I'm saying this is
changing the way _EAS_ deals with RT tasks. Right now we don't actually
consider the RT-go-to-max thing at all in the EAS prediction. Your
patch is changing that AFAICT. It actually changes the way EAS sees RT
tasks even without uclamp ...

But I'm not hostile to the idea since it's possible to enable uclamp and
set the min cap to 0 for RT if you want. So there is a story there.
However, I think this needs be documented somewhere, at the very least.

Thanks,
Quentin