From: Leonard Crestez <leonard.crestez@nxp.com>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
Rafael Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
Shawn Guo <shawnguo@kernel.org>,
Sascha Hauer <kernel@pengutronix.de>,
Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam@nxp.com>
Cc: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
linux@dominikbrodowski.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 3/9] cpufreq: Cap the default transition delay value to 10 ms
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 20:48:50 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1501609730.17254.5.camel@nxp.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170728052843.GT352@vireshk-i7>
On Fri, 2017-07-28 at 10:58 +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 27-07-17, 19:54, Leonard Crestez wrote:
> > On Wed, 2017-07-26 at 11:36 +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > > Without this patch the sampling rate of ondemand governor will be 109
> > > ms. And after this patch it would be capped at 10 ms. Why would that
> > > screw up anyone's setup ? I don't have an answer to that right now.
> > On a closer look it seems that most of the time is actually spent at
> > low cpufreq though (90%+).
> >
> > Your change makes it so that even something like "sleep 1; cat
> > scaling_cur_freq" raises the frequency to the maximum.
> Why?
>
> >
> > This happens
> > enough that even if you do it in a loop you will never see the minimum
> > frequency. It seems there is enough internal bookkeeping on such a
> > wakeup that it takes more than 10ms and enough for a reevaluation of
> > cpufreq until cat returns the value?!
> At this point I really feel that this is a hardware specific problem
> and it was working by chance until now. And I am not sure if we
> shouldn't be stopping this patch from getting merged just because of
> that.
Yes, I agree. Something is fishy here but most likely your patch just
expose the problem.
> At least you can teach your distribution to go increase the sampling
> rate from userspace to make it all work.
>
> Can you try one more thing? Try using schedutil governor and see how
> it behaves ?
I don't have the time to investigate this properly right now.
> > I found this by enabling the power:cpu_frequency tracepoint event and
> > checking for deltas with a script. Enabling CPU_FREQ_STAT show this:
> >
> > time_in_state:
> >
> > 396000 1609
> So we still stay at the lowest frequency most of the time.
Yes
> Maybe can you compare these values with and without this patch to let
> us know?
Without the patch it is always at low freq. Sampling at a lower
frequency means spikes get ignored.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Leonard Crestez <leonard.crestez@nxp.com>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
Rafael Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
Shawn Guo <shawnguo@kernel.org>,
Sascha Hauer <kernel@pengutronix.de>,
Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam@nxp.com>
Cc: <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
<linux@dominikbrodowski.net>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 3/9] cpufreq: Cap the default transition delay value to 10 ms
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 20:48:50 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1501609730.17254.5.camel@nxp.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170728052843.GT352@vireshk-i7>
On Fri, 2017-07-28 at 10:58 +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 27-07-17, 19:54, Leonard Crestez wrote:
> > On Wed, 2017-07-26 at 11:36 +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > > Without this patch the sampling rate of ondemand governor will be 109
> > > ms. And after this patch it would be capped at 10 ms. Why would that
> > > screw up anyone's setup ? I don't have an answer to that right now.
> > On a closer look it seems that most of the time is actually spent at
> > low cpufreq though (90%+).
> >
> > Your change makes it so that even something like "sleep 1; cat
> > scaling_cur_freq" raises the frequency to the maximum.
> Why?
>
> >
> > This happens
> > enough that even if you do it in a loop you will never see the minimum
> > frequency. It seems there is enough internal bookkeeping on such a
> > wakeup that it takes more than 10ms and enough for a reevaluation of
> > cpufreq until cat returns the value?!
> At this point I really feel that this is a hardware specific problem
> and it was working by chance until now. And I am not sure if we
> shouldn't be stopping this patch from getting merged just because of
> that.
Yes, I agree. Something is fishy here but most likely your patch just
expose the problem.
> At least you can teach your distribution to go increase the sampling
> rate from userspace to make it all work.
>
> Can you try one more thing? Try using schedutil governor and see how
> it behaves ?
I don't have the time to investigate this properly right now.
> > I found this by enabling the power:cpu_frequency tracepoint event and
> > checking for deltas with a script. Enabling CPU_FREQ_STAT show this:
> >
> > time_in_state:
> >
> > 396000 1609
> So we still stay at the lowest frequency most of the time.
Yes
> Maybe can you compare these values with and without this patch to let
> us know?
Without the patch it is always at low freq. Sampling at a lower
frequency means spikes get ignored.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-08-01 17:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-07-19 10:12 [PATCH V3 0/9] cpufreq: transition-latency cleanups Viresh Kumar
2017-07-19 10:12 ` [PATCH V3 1/9] cpufreq: governor: Drop min_sampling_rate Viresh Kumar
2017-07-19 10:12 ` [PATCH V3 2/9] cpufreq: Use transition_delay_us for legacy governors as well Viresh Kumar
2017-07-24 16:17 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-07-28 4:48 ` Viresh Kumar
2017-07-19 10:12 ` [PATCH V3 3/9] cpufreq: Cap the default transition delay value to 10 ms Viresh Kumar
2017-07-25 11:54 ` Leonard Crestez
2017-07-25 11:54 ` Leonard Crestez
2017-07-26 0:19 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2017-07-26 6:06 ` Viresh Kumar
2017-07-27 16:54 ` Leonard Crestez
2017-07-27 16:54 ` Leonard Crestez
2017-07-28 5:28 ` Viresh Kumar
2017-08-01 17:48 ` Leonard Crestez [this message]
2017-08-01 17:48 ` Leonard Crestez
2017-08-02 3:23 ` Viresh Kumar
2017-08-16 6:34 ` Viresh Kumar
2017-08-16 9:42 ` Leonard Crestez
2017-08-16 9:42 ` Leonard Crestez
2017-08-17 3:38 ` Viresh Kumar
2017-07-19 10:12 ` [PATCH V3 4/9] cpufreq: Don't set transition_latency for setpolicy drivers Viresh Kumar
2017-07-19 10:12 ` [PATCH V3 5/9] cpufreq: arm_big_little: Make ->get_transition_latency() mandatory Viresh Kumar
2017-07-19 10:12 ` [PATCH V3 6/9] cpufreq: Replace "max_transition_latency" with "dynamic_switching" Viresh Kumar
2017-07-19 10:12 ` [PATCH V3 7/9] cpufreq: schedutil: Set dynamic_switching to true Viresh Kumar
2017-07-19 10:12 ` [PATCH V3 8/9] cpufreq: Add CPUFREQ_NO_AUTO_DYNAMIC_SWITCHING cpufreq driver flag Viresh Kumar
2017-07-19 16:30 ` Dominik Brodowski
2017-07-19 10:12 ` [PATCH V3 9/9] cpufreq: Allow dynamic switching with CPUFREQ_ETERNAL latency Viresh Kumar
2017-07-19 12:42 ` [PATCH V3 0/9] cpufreq: transition-latency cleanups 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=1501609730.17254.5.camel@nxp.com \
--to=leonard.crestez@nxp.com \
--cc=fabio.estevam@nxp.com \
--cc=kernel@pengutronix.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@dominikbrodowski.net \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=shawnguo@kernel.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@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.