[PATCH 2/6] drivers base/arch_topology: frequency-invariant load-tracking support

[viresh.kumar@linaro.org (Viresh Kumar)]

On 21-06-17, 17:57, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> It is true that this patch relies on the notifiers, but I don't see how
> that prevents us from adding a non-notifier based solution for
> fast-switch enabled platforms later?

No it doesn't, but I thought it would be better to have a single
solution (if possible) for all the cases here.

> > I think this patch doesn't really need to go down the notifiers way.
> > 
> > We can do something like this in the implementation of
> > topology_get_freq_scale():
> > 
> >         return (policy->cur << SCHED_CAPACITY_SHIFT) / max;
> > 
> > Though, we would be required to take care of policy structure in this
> > case somehow.
> 
> This is exactly what this patch implements. Unfortunately we can't be
> sure that there is a valid policy data structure where we can read the
> information from.

Actually there is a way around that.

- Revert one of my patches:
  commit f9f41e3ef99a ("cpufreq: Remove policy create/remove notifiers")

- Use those notifiers in init_cpu_capacity_callback() instead of
  CPUFREQ_NOTIFY and set/reset a local policy pointer.

- And this pointer we can use safely/reliably in
  topology_get_freq_scale(). We may need to use RCU read side
  protection in topology_get_freq_scale() though, to make sure the
  local policy pointer isn't getting updated simultaneously.

- If the policy pointer isn't set, then we can use
  SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE value instead.


> Isn't the policy protected by a lock as well?

There are locks, but you don't need any to read policy->cur.

> Another thing is that I don't think a transition notifier based solution
> or any other solution based on the cur/max ratio is really the right way
> to go for fast-switching platforms. If we can do very frequent frequency
> switching it makes less sense to use the current ratio whenever we
> update the PELT averages as the frequency might have changed multiple
> times since the last update. So it would make more sense to have an
> average ratio instead.

> If the platform has HW counters (e.g. APERF/MPERF) that can provide the
> ratio then we should of course use those, if not, one solution could be
> to let cpufreq track the average frequency for each cpu over a suitable
> time window (around one sched period I think). It should be fairly low
> overhead to maintain. In the topology driver, we would then choose
> whether the scaling factor is provided by the cpufreq average frequency
> ratio or the current transition notifier based approach based on the
> capabilities of the platform.

Hmm, maybe.

-- 
viresh