Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] cpufreq: Introduce LAB cpufreq governor.

[Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@samsung.com>]

Hi Viresh and Vincent,

> On 9 April 2013 16:07, Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@samsung.com> wrote:
> >> On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Jonghwa Lee
> > Our approach is a bit different than cpufreq_ondemand one. Ondemand
> > takes the per CPU idle time, then on that basis calculates per cpu
> > load. The next step is to choose the highest load and then use this
> > value to properly scale frequency.
> >
> > On the other hand LAB tries to model different behavior:
> >
> > As a first step we applied Vincent Guittot's "pack small tasks" [*]
> > patch to improve "race to idle" behavior:
> > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1371435/match=sched+pack+small+tasks
> 
> Luckily he is part of my team :)
> 
> http://www.linaro.org/linux-on-arm/meet-the-team/power-management
> 
> BTW, he is using ondemand governor for all his work.
> 
> > Afterwards, we decided to investigate different approach for power
> > governing:
> >
> > Use the number of sleeping CPUs (not the maximal per-CPU load) to
> > change frequency. We thereof depend on [*] to "pack" as many tasks
> > to CPU as possible and allow other to sleep.
> 
> He packs only small tasks. 

What's about packing not only small tasks? I will investigate the
possibility to aggressively pack (even with a cost of performance
degradation) as many tasks as possible to a single CPU. 

It seems a good idea for a power consumption reduction. 

> And if there are many small tasks we are
> packing, then load must be high and so ondemand gov will increase
> freq.

This is of course true for "packing" all tasks to a single CPU. If we
stay at the power consumption envelope, we can even overclock the
frequency.

But what if other - lets say 3 CPUs - are under heavy workload? 
Ondemand will switch frequency to maximum, and as Jonghwa pointed out
this can cause dangerous temperature increase.

> 
> > Contrary, when all cores are heavily loaded, we decided to reduce
> > frequency by around 30%. With this approach user experience
> > recution is still acceptable (with much less power consumption).
> 
> Don't know.. running many cpus at lower freq for long duration will
> probably take more power than running them at high freq for short
> duration and making system idle again.
> 
> > We have posted this "RFC" patch mainly for discussion, and I think
> > it fits its purpose :-).
> 
> Yes, no issues with your RFC idea.. its perfect..
> 
> @Vincent: Can you please follow this thread a bit and tell us what
> your views are?
> 
> --
> viresh



-- 
Best regards,

Lukasz Majewski

Samsung R&D Poland (SRPOL) | Linux Platform Group