LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Claudio Scordino <claudio@evidence.eu.com>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
	Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@santannapisa.it>,
	Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>,
	linux-pm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] sched/cpufreq/schedutil: handling urgent frequency requests
Date: Tue, 8 May 2018 14:32:27 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <a3cf769c-5f71-17fb-eeee-6e7e17ffa78a@evidence.eu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180508065435.bcht6dyb3rpp6gk5@vireshk-i7>



Il 08/05/2018 08:54, Viresh Kumar ha scritto:
> On 07-05-18, 16:43, Claudio Scordino wrote:
>> At OSPM, it was mentioned the issue about urgent CPU frequency requests
>> arriving when a frequency switch is already in progress.
>>
>> Besides the various issues (physical time for switching frequency,
>> on-going kthread activity, etc.) one (minor) issue is the kernel
>> "forgetting" such request, thus waiting the next switch time for
>> recomputing the needed frequency and behaving accordingly.
>>
>> This patch makes the kthread serve any urgent request occurred during
>> the previous frequency switch. It introduces a specific flag, only set
>> when the SCHED_DEADLINE scheduling class increases the CPU utilization,
>> aiming at decreasing the likelihood of a deadline miss.
>>
>> Indeed, some preliminary tests in critical conditions (i.e.
>> SCHED_DEADLINE tasks with short periods) have shown reductions of more
>> than 10% of the average number of deadline misses. On the other hand,
>> the increase in terms of energy consumption when running SCHED_DEADLINE
>> tasks (not yet measured) is likely to be not negligible (especially in
>> case of critical scenarios like "ramp up" utilizations).
>>
>> The patch is meant as follow-up discussion after OSPM.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Claudio Scordino <claudio@evidence.eu.com>
>> CC: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
>> CC: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
>> CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
>> CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
>> CC: Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
>> CC: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>
>> Cc: Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@santannapisa.it>
>> CC: Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>
>> CC: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org
>> ---
>>   kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++--
>>   1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
>> index d2c6083..4de06b0 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
>> @@ -41,6 +41,7 @@ struct sugov_policy {
>>   	bool			work_in_progress;
>>   
>>   	bool			need_freq_update;
>> +	bool			urgent_freq_update;
>>   };
>>   
>>   struct sugov_cpu {
>> @@ -92,6 +93,14 @@ static bool sugov_should_update_freq(struct sugov_policy *sg_policy, u64 time)
>>   	    !cpufreq_can_do_remote_dvfs(sg_policy->policy))
>>   		return false;
>>   
>> +	/*
>> +	 * Continue computing the new frequency. In case of work_in_progress,
>> +	 * the kthread will resched a change once the current transition is
>> +	 * finished.
>> +	 */
>> +	if (sg_policy->urgent_freq_update)
>> +		return true;
>> +
>>   	if (sg_policy->work_in_progress)
>>   		return false;
>>   
>> @@ -121,6 +130,9 @@ static void sugov_update_commit(struct sugov_policy *sg_policy, u64 time,
>>   	sg_policy->next_freq = next_freq;
>>   	sg_policy->last_freq_update_time = time;
>>   
>> +	if (sg_policy->work_in_progress)
>> +		return;
>> +
>>   	if (policy->fast_switch_enabled) {
>>   		next_freq = cpufreq_driver_fast_switch(policy, next_freq);
>>   		if (!next_freq)
>> @@ -274,7 +286,7 @@ static inline bool sugov_cpu_is_busy(struct sugov_cpu *sg_cpu) { return false; }
>>   static inline void ignore_dl_rate_limit(struct sugov_cpu *sg_cpu, struct sugov_policy *sg_policy)
>>   {
>>   	if (cpu_util_dl(cpu_rq(sg_cpu->cpu)) > sg_cpu->util_dl)
>> -		sg_policy->need_freq_update = true;
>> +		sg_policy->urgent_freq_update = true;
>>   }
>>   
>>   static void sugov_update_single(struct update_util_data *hook, u64 time,
>> @@ -383,8 +395,11 @@ static void sugov_work(struct kthread_work *work)
>>   	struct sugov_policy *sg_policy = container_of(work, struct sugov_policy, work);
>>   
>>   	mutex_lock(&sg_policy->work_lock);
>> -	__cpufreq_driver_target(sg_policy->policy, sg_policy->next_freq,
>> +	do {
>> +		sg_policy->urgent_freq_update = false;
>> +		__cpufreq_driver_target(sg_policy->policy, sg_policy->next_freq,
>>   				CPUFREQ_RELATION_L);
> 
> If we are going to solve this problem, then maybe instead of the added
> complexity and a new flag we can look for need_freq_update flag at this location
> and re-calculate the next frequency if required.

I agree.
Indeed, I've been in doubt if adding a new flag or relying on the existing need_freq_update flag (whose name, however, didn't seem to reflect any sense of urgency).
Maybe we can use need_freq_update but change its name to a more meaningful string ?

Thanks,

            Claudio

  reply	other threads:[~2018-05-08 12:32 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-05-07 14:43 Claudio Scordino
2018-05-08  6:54 ` Viresh Kumar
2018-05-08 12:32   ` Claudio Scordino [this message]
2018-05-08 20:40     ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-05-09  4:54   ` Joel Fernandes
2018-05-09  6:45     ` Juri Lelli
2018-05-09  6:54       ` Viresh Kumar
2018-05-09  7:01         ` Joel Fernandes
2018-05-09  8:05           ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-05-09  8:22             ` Joel Fernandes
2018-05-09  8:41               ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-05-09  8:23             ` Juri Lelli
2018-05-09  8:25               ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-05-09  8:41                 ` Juri Lelli
2018-05-09  6:55       ` Joel Fernandes
2018-05-09  8:06       ` Joel Fernandes
2018-05-09  8:30         ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-05-09  8:40           ` Viresh Kumar
2018-05-09  9:02             ` Joel Fernandes
2018-05-09  9:28               ` Viresh Kumar
2018-05-09 10:34                 ` Joel Fernandes
2018-05-09  8:51           ` Joel Fernandes
2018-05-09  9:06             ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-05-09  9:39               ` Joel Fernandes
2018-05-09  9:48                 ` 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=a3cf769c-5f71-17fb-eeee-6e7e17ffa78a@evidence.eu.com \
    --to=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=luca.abeni@santannapisa.it \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=patrick.bellasi@arm.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com \
    --cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
    --subject='Re: [RFC PATCH] sched/cpufreq/schedutil: handling urgent frequency requests' \
    /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).