Hi Vincent,

On 21/03/16 12:09, Vincent Guittot wrote:

On 21 March 2016 at 11:53, Juri Lelli [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Hi Sai,

On 18/03/16 10:49, Sai Gurrappadi wrote:

quoted

Hi Juri,

On 03/18/2016 07:24 AM, Juri Lelli wrote:

<snip>

quoted

+
+==========================================
+2 - CPU capacity definition
+==========================================
+
+CPU capacity is a number that provides the scheduler information about CPUs
+heterogeneity. Such heterogeneity can come from micro-architectural differences
+(e.g., ARM big.LITTLE systems) or maximum frequency at which CPUs can run
+(e.g., SMP systems with multiple frequency domains). Heterogeneity in this
+context is about differing performance characteristics; this binding tries to
+capture a first-order approximation of the relative performance of CPUs.

Any reason why this capacity number is not dynamically generated based on the
max frequency for each CPU? The DT property would then instead specify just
the micro-architectural differences between the CPU types.

I'm not sure I clearly understand your question, so I'll try to
reiterate it.

Are you asking why we don't dynamically profile the system, at boot for
example, to get this number? Or do you ask why this number couldn't be
only describing micro-arch differences (so, if I get it right, we should
then multiply it by max freq to get the capacity of a CPU)?

We already played with the first option (please refer to v2 and v3), but
we ended up agreeing that dynamic profiling adds overhead to the boot
process (while a DT approach can provide information to speed up boot)
and it is in general not repeatable/reliable (as numbers can vary from
boot to boot for different reasons).

The second option I think can be feasible, but I'm not sure what we gain
in practice. We will still need to specify a per-platform number, right?

So could we use dt binding like dhrystone = <xyz> (with a unit like
DMIPS/Mhz)  which can then be combined with OPP table to gives a
1st-order approximation of each CPU capacity ?

But we'll still need to normalize this w.r.t the highest score we get on
a specific platform, right? And while we are at normalizing it, it is
probably simpler if we keep the frequency component as part of the
number, IMHO. But, maybe keeping the frequency component separate is
more acceptable from a DT binding perspective?

Thanks,

- Juri