From: Christian Loehle <christian.loehle@arm.com>
To: Qais Yousef <qyousef@layalina.io>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
Hongyan Xia <hongyan.xia2@arm.com>,
John Stultz <jstultz@google.com>,
linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] sched: Consolidate cpufreq updates
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2024 13:24:02 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1b44938c-9535-47e7-8cbc-2b844e5dfdff@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240530104653.1234004-1-qyousef@layalina.io>
On 5/30/24 11:46, Qais Yousef wrote:
> Improve the interaction with cpufreq governors by making the
> cpufreq_update_util() calls more intentional.
>
> At the moment we send them when load is updated for CFS, bandwidth for
> DL and at enqueue/dequeue for RT. But this can lead to too many updates
> sent in a short period of time and potentially be ignored at a critical
> moment due to the rate_limit_us in schedutil.
>
> For example, simultaneous task enqueue on the CPU where 2nd task is
> bigger and requires higher freq. The trigger to cpufreq_update_util() by
> the first task will lead to dropping the 2nd request until tick. Or
> another CPU in the same policy triggers a freq update shortly after.
>
> Updates at enqueue for RT are not strictly required. Though they do help
> to reduce the delay for switching the frequency and the potential
> observation of lower frequency during this delay. But current logic
> doesn't intentionally (at least to my understanding) try to speed up the
> request.
>
> To help reduce the amount of cpufreq updates and make them more
> purposeful, consolidate them into these locations:
>
> 1. context_switch()
> 2. task_tick_fair()
> 3. update_blocked_averages()
> 4. on syscall that changes policy or uclamp values
>
> The update at context switch should help guarantee that DL and RT get
> the right frequency straightaway when they're RUNNING. As mentioned
> though the update will happen slightly after enqueue_task(); though in
> an ideal world these tasks should be RUNNING ASAP and this additional
> delay should be negligible.
Do we care at all about PREEMPT_NONE (and voluntary) here? I assume no.
Anyway one scenario that should regress when we don't update at RT enqueue:
(Essentially means that util of higher prio dominates over lower, if
higher is enqueued first.)
System:
OPP 0, cap: 102, 100MHz; OPP 1, cap: 1024, 1000MHz
RT task A prio=0 runtime@OPP1=1ms, uclamp_min=0; RT task B prio=1 runtime@OPP1=1ms, uclamp_min=1024
rate_limit_us = freq transition delay = 1 (assume basically instant switch)
Let's say CONFIG_HZ=100 for the tick to not get in the way, doesn't really matter.
Before:
t+0: Enqueue task A switch to OPP0
Running A at OPP 0
t+2us: Enqueue task B switch to OPP1
t+1000us: Task A done, switch to task B.
t+2000us: Task B done
Now:
t+0: Enqueue task A switch to OPP0
Running A at OPP 0
t+2us: Enqueue task B
t+10000us: Task A done, switch to task B and OPP1
t+11000us: Task B done
Or am I missing something?
Kind Regards,
Christian
> [snip]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-06-05 12:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-05-30 10:46 [PATCH v5] sched: Consolidate cpufreq updates Qais Yousef
2024-06-01 22:40 ` Qais Yousef
2024-06-05 12:22 ` Vincent Guittot
2024-06-09 22:20 ` Qais Yousef
2024-06-17 0:46 ` Qais Yousef
2024-06-05 12:24 ` Christian Loehle [this message]
2024-06-09 22:33 ` Qais Yousef
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=1b44938c-9535-47e7-8cbc-2b844e5dfdff@arm.com \
--to=christian.loehle@arm.com \
--cc=bristot@redhat.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=hongyan.xia2@arm.com \
--cc=jstultz@google.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=qyousef@layalina.io \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
--cc=vschneid@redhat.com \
/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