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: 24+ 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
2017-07-26 0:19 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2017-07-26 6:06 ` Viresh Kumar
2017-07-27 16:54 ` Leonard Crestez
2017-07-28 5:28 ` Viresh Kumar
2017-08-01 17:48 ` Leonard Crestez [this message]
2017-08-02 3:23 ` Viresh Kumar
2017-08-16 6:34 ` Viresh Kumar
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 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).