Re: [PATCH 1/4] cpufreq: Add a cpufreq pressure feedback for the scheduler

From: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Cc: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
	catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org, sudeep.holla@arm.com,
	agross@kernel.org, andersson@kernel.org,
	konrad.dybcio@linaro.org, mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org,
	juri.lelli@redhat.com, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
	rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de,
	bristot@redhat.com, vschneid@redhat.com, rui.zhang@intel.com,
	mhiramat@kernel.org, daniel.lezcano@linaro.org,
	amit.kachhap@gmail.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] cpufreq: Add a cpufreq pressure feedback for the scheduler
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2023 10:41:05 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <fe8f8d00-1720-4a47-83ae-1aa4c005c4f5@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJZ5v0gD-utGhM3vN7JmPia1CVcSQa6RPnk2xMBXXc6asRTn=g@mail.gmail.com>

On 12/14/23 09:40, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 10:07 AM Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 12/14/23 07:57, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>> On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 at 06:43, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 12-12-23, 15:27, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>>>> @@ -2618,6 +2663,9 @@ static int cpufreq_set_policy(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
>>>>>         policy->max = __resolve_freq(policy, policy->max, CPUFREQ_RELATION_H);
>>>>>         trace_cpu_frequency_limits(policy);
>>>>>
>>>>> +     cpus = policy->related_cpus;
>>>>> +     cpufreq_update_pressure(cpus, policy->max);
>>>>> +
>>>>>         policy->cached_target_freq = UINT_MAX;
>>>>
>>>> One more question, why are you doing this from cpufreq_set_policy ? If
>>>> due to cpufreq cooling or from userspace, we end up limiting the
>>>> maximum possible frequency, will this routine always get called ?
>>>
>>> Yes, any update of a FREQ_QOS_MAX ends up calling cpufreq_set_policy()
>>> to update the policy->max
>>>
>>
>> Agree, cpufreq sysfs scaling_max_freq is also important to handle
>> in this new design. Currently we don't reflect that as reduced CPU
>> capacity in the scheduler. There was discussion when I proposed to feed
>> that CPU frequency reduction into thermal_pressure [1].
>>
>> The same applies for the DTPM which is missing currently the proper
>> impact to the CPU reduced capacity in the scheduler.
>>
>> IMHO any limit set into FREQ_QOS_MAX should be visible in this
>> new design of capacity reduction signaling.
>>
>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220930094821.31665-2-lukasz.luba@arm.com/
> 
> Actually, freq_qos_read_value(&policy->constraints, FREQ_QOS_MAX) will
> return the requisite limit.

Yes, but we need to translate that information from freq domain
into capacity domain and plumb ii into scheduler as stolen CPU capacity.
Ideally, w/o any 'smoothing' but just instant value.
That's the hope of this patch set re-design.

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel