LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Cc: Rafael Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
	Claudio Scordino <claudio@evidence.eu.com>,
	Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
	Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>,
	"4 . 12+" <stable@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/schedutil: Don't set next_freq to UINT_MAX
Date: Wed, 9 May 2018 14:11:28 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180509084128.s3nu57njyep4tw2w@vireshk-i7> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJZ5v0gVpOT81WPFc8shkPa0vzteb6s2r9dBYW9VGz+wcuffGw@mail.gmail.com>

On 08-05-18, 22:54, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 8:42 AM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
> > The schedutil driver sets sg_policy->next_freq to UINT_MAX on certain
> > occasions:
> > - In sugov_start(), when the schedutil governor is started for a group
> >   of CPUs.
> > - And whenever we need to force a freq update before rate-limit
> >   duration, which happens when:
> >   - there is an update in cpufreq policy limits.
> >   - Or when the utilization of DL scheduling class increases.
> >
> > In return, get_next_freq() doesn't return a cached next_freq value but
> > instead recalculates the next frequency. This has some side effects
> > though and may significantly delay a required increase in frequency.
> >
> > In sugov_update_single() we try to avoid decreasing frequency if the CPU
> > has not been idle recently. Consider this scenario, the available range
> > of frequencies for a CPU are from 800 MHz to 2.5 GHz and current
> > frequency is 800 MHz. From one of the call paths
> > sg_policy->need_freq_update is set to true and hence
> > sg_policy->next_freq is set to UINT_MAX. Now if the CPU had been busy,
> > next_f will always be less than UINT_MAX, whatever the value of next_f
> > is. And so even when we wanted to increase the frequency, we will
> > overwrite next_f with UINT_MAX and will not change the frequency
> > eventually. This will continue until the time CPU stays busy. This isn't
> > cross checked with any specific test cases, but rather based on general
> > code review.
> >
> > Fix that by not resetting the sg_policy->need_freq_update flag from
> > sugov_should_update_freq() but get_next_freq() and we wouldn't need to
> > overwrite sg_policy->next_freq anymore.
> >
> > Cc: 4.12+ <stable@vger.kernel.org> # 4.12+
> > Fixes: b7eaf1aab9f8 ("cpufreq: schedutil: Avoid reducing frequency of busy CPUs prematurely")
> 
> The rest of the chantelog is totally disconnected from this commit.

I added the "Fixes" tag because this is exactly the commit after which
this problem started, isn't it?

> So the problem is that sugov_update_single() doesn't check the special
> UNIT_MAX value before assigning sg_policy->next_freq to next_f.  Fair
> enough.
> 
> I don't see why the patch is the right fix for that, however.

I thought not overwriting next_freq makes things much simpler and easy
to review. What else do you have in mind to solve this problem ?

-- 
viresh

  reply	other threads:[~2018-05-09  8:43 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-05-08  6:42 Viresh Kumar
2018-05-08 20:54 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-05-09  8:41   ` Viresh Kumar [this message]
2018-05-09  8:56     ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-05-09  9:15       ` Viresh Kumar
2018-05-09  9:23         ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-05-09  9:30           ` Viresh Kumar
2018-05-09  9:32             ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-05-09  9:44 ` [PATCH] cpufreq: schedutil: Avoid using invalid next_freq Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-05-09  9:46   ` Viresh Kumar
2018-05-09 10:35   ` [PATCH V2] sched/schedutil: Don't set next_freq to UINT_MAX Viresh Kumar
2018-05-11 20:47     ` [V2] " Joel Fernandes
2018-05-17 10:33       ` Rafael J. Wysocki

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20180509084128.s3nu57njyep4tw2w@vireshk-i7 \
    --to=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
    --cc=claudio@evidence.eu.com \
    --cc=joelaf@google.com \
    --cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=patrick.bellasi@arm.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rafael@kernel.org \
    --cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
    --cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH] sched/schedutil: Don'\''t set next_freq to UINT_MAX' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).