From: "Doug Smythies" <dsmythies@telus.net>
To: 'Leonard Crestez' <leonard.crestez@nxp.com>,
linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
'Viresh Kumar' <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
"'Rafael J. Wysocki'" <rafael@kernel.org>,
'Steve Muckle' <smuckle@linaro.org>
Cc: 'Anson Huang' <anson.huang@nxp.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Doug Smythies <dsmythies@telus.net>
Subject: RE: [BUG] schedutil governor produces regular max freq spikes because of lockup detector watchdog threads
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2018 08:12:52 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <000001d38709$363d5180$a2b7f480$@net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: XYkGesLZd7WleXYkHe0H9k
On 2018.01.05 12:38 Leonard Crestez wrote:
> When using the schedutil governor together with the softlockup detector
> all CPUs go to their maximum frequency on a regular basis. This seems
> to be because the watchdog creates a RT thread on each CPU and this
> causes regular kicks with:
>
> cpufreq_update_this_cpu(rq, SCHED_CPUFREQ_RT);
>
> The schedutil governor responds to this by immediately setting the
> maximum cpu frequency, this is very undesirable.
>
> The issue can be fixed by this patch from android:
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9301909/
>
> The patch stalled in a long discussion about how it's difficult for
> cpufreq to deal with RT and how some RT users might just disable
> cpufreq. It is indeed hard but if the system experiences regular power
> kicks from a common debug feature they will end up disabling schedutil
> instead. No other governors behave this way, perhaps the current
> behavior should be considered a bug in schedutil.
>
> That patch now has conflicts with latest upstream. Perhaps a modified
> variant should be reconsidered for inclusion, or is there some other
> solution pending?
>
> Alternatively the watchdog threads could be somehow marked as to never
> cause increased cpufreq.
Your e-mail was very timely for me. In mid December, while testing the
minimum sampling rate change commit, I also did a reference test using
intel-cpufreq driver and schedutil governor. Under a range of
conditions 79% more package power was consumed by schedutil when compared
to: ondemand, sample rate 2 mSec; ondemand, sample rate 20 mSec;
intel_pstate driver.
I did not know about the thread and patch you referred to. Thanks.
Additionally, on otherwise mostly idle CPUs, sometimes I observe that after
the setting of max pstate, it gets left there with no update at all for
over a hundred seconds. Examples:
CPU3: 165 seconds since change to max pstate; Load 0.07%; new pstate = minimum
CPU5: 121 seconds since change to max pstate; Load 0.47%; new pstate = mid range
Reference (for me only): trace_stuff/results/pass24 samples 59797 and 59803
... Doug
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Doug Smythies" <dsmythies@telus.net>
To: "'Leonard Crestez'" <leonard.crestez@nxp.com>,
<linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
"'Viresh Kumar'" <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
"'Rafael J. Wysocki'" <rafael@kernel.org>,
"'Steve Muckle'" <smuckle@linaro.org>
Cc: "'Anson Huang'" <anson.huang@nxp.com>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Doug Smythies" <dsmythies@telus.net>
Subject: RE: [BUG] schedutil governor produces regular max freq spikes because of lockup detector watchdog threads
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2018 08:12:52 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <000001d38709$363d5180$a2b7f480$@net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: XYkGesLZd7WleXYkHe0H9k
On 2018.01.05 12:38 Leonard Crestez wrote:
> When using the schedutil governor together with the softlockup detector
> all CPUs go to their maximum frequency on a regular basis. This seems
> to be because the watchdog creates a RT thread on each CPU and this
> causes regular kicks with:
>
> cpufreq_update_this_cpu(rq, SCHED_CPUFREQ_RT);
>
> The schedutil governor responds to this by immediately setting the
> maximum cpu frequency, this is very undesirable.
>
> The issue can be fixed by this patch from android:
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9301909/
>
> The patch stalled in a long discussion about how it's difficult for
> cpufreq to deal with RT and how some RT users might just disable
> cpufreq. It is indeed hard but if the system experiences regular power
> kicks from a common debug feature they will end up disabling schedutil
> instead. No other governors behave this way, perhaps the current
> behavior should be considered a bug in schedutil.
>
> That patch now has conflicts with latest upstream. Perhaps a modified
> variant should be reconsidered for inclusion, or is there some other
> solution pending?
>
> Alternatively the watchdog threads could be somehow marked as to never
> cause increased cpufreq.
Your e-mail was very timely for me. In mid December, while testing the
minimum sampling rate change commit, I also did a reference test using
intel-cpufreq driver and schedutil governor. Under a range of
conditions 79% more package power was consumed by schedutil when compared
to: ondemand, sample rate 2 mSec; ondemand, sample rate 20 mSec;
intel_pstate driver.
I did not know about the thread and patch you referred to. Thanks.
Additionally, on otherwise mostly idle CPUs, sometimes I observe that after
the setting of max pstate, it gets left there with no update at all for
over a hundred seconds. Examples:
CPU3: 165 seconds since change to max pstate; Load 0.07%; new pstate = minimum
CPU5: 121 seconds since change to max pstate; Load 0.47%; new pstate = mid range
Reference (for me only): trace_stuff/results/pass24 samples 59797 and 59803
... Doug
next reply other threads:[~2018-01-06 16:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-01-06 16:12 Doug Smythies [this message]
2018-01-06 16:12 ` [BUG] schedutil governor produces regular max freq spikes because of lockup detector watchdog threads Doug Smythies
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2018-01-05 20:37 Leonard Crestez
2018-01-05 20:37 ` Leonard Crestez
2018-01-05 22:18 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-01-08 4:01 ` Viresh Kumar
2018-01-08 13:10 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-01-08 13:20 ` Leonard Crestez
2018-01-08 13:20 ` Leonard Crestez
2018-01-08 15:14 ` Patrick Bellasi
2018-01-08 15:51 ` Leonard Crestez
2018-01-08 15:51 ` Leonard Crestez
2018-01-09 1:17 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-01-09 14:43 ` Leonard Crestez
2018-01-09 15:16 ` Lucas Stach
2018-01-09 15:50 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-01-10 10:54 ` Juri Lelli
2018-01-10 12:35 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-01-10 14:21 ` Juri Lelli
2018-01-11 1:20 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-01-10 4:08 ` Viresh Kumar
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='000001d38709$363d5180$a2b7f480$@net' \
--to=dsmythies@telus.net \
--cc=anson.huang@nxp.com \
--cc=leonard.crestez@nxp.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=smuckle@linaro.org \
--cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
/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
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.