On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 at 09:53, Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On 12/14/23 08:36, Vincent Guittot wrote: > > On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 at 09:30, Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 12/12/23 14:27, Vincent Guittot wrote: > > [snip] > > >>> update_rq_clock(rq); > >>> - thermal_pressure = arch_scale_thermal_pressure(cpu_of(rq)); > >>> - update_thermal_load_avg(rq_clock_thermal(rq), rq, thermal_pressure); > >>> + hw_pressure = arch_scale_hw_pressure(cpu_of(rq)); > >>> + update_hw_load_avg(rq_clock_task(rq), rq, hw_pressure); > >> > >> We switch to task clock here, could you tell me why? > >> Don't we have to maintain the boot command parameter for the shift? > > > > This should have been part of the patch5 that I finally removed. IMO, > > the additional time shift with rq_clock_thermal is no more needed now > > that we have 2 separates signals > > > > I didn't like the left-shift which causes the signal to converge slowly. > I rather wanted right-shift to converge (react faster), so you have my > vote for this change. Also, I agree that with the two-signal approach > this shift trick can go away now. I just worry about the dropped boot > parameter. > > So, are going to send that patach5 which removes the > 'sched_thermal_decay_shift' and documentation bit? Yes, i will add it back for the next version
