From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
Cc: Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>,
John <john.ettedgui@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC/RFT][PATCH] cpufreq: schedutil: Reduce frequencies slower
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 14:33:34 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170412090334.GE5910@vireshk-i7> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1514608.eWxQqcMBcc@aspire.rjw.lan>
On 30-03-17, 23:36, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
>
> The schedutil governor reduces frequencies too fast in some
> situations which cases undesirable performance drops to
> appear.
>
> To address that issue, make schedutil reduce the frequency slower by
> setting it to the average of the value chosen during the previous
> iteration of governor computations and the new one coming from its
> frequency selection formula.
>
> Link: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=194963
> Reported-by: John <john.ettedgui@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> ---
>
> This addresses a practical issue, but one in the "responsiveness" or
> "interactivity" category which is quite hard to represent quantitatively.
>
> As reported by John in BZ194963, schedutil does not ramp up P-states quickly
> enough which causes audio issues to appear in his gaming setup. At least it
> evidently is worse than ondemand in this respect and the patch below helps.
>
> The patch essentially repeats the trick added some time ago to the load-based
> P-state selection algorithm in intel_pstate, which allowed us to make it viable
> for performance-oriented users, and which is to reduce frequencies at a slower
> pace.
>
> The reason why I chose the average is because it is computationally cheap
> and pretty much the max reasonable slowdown and the idea is that in case
> there's something about to run that we don't know about yet, it is better to
> stay at a higher level for a while more to avoid having to get up from the floor
> every time.
>
> But technically speaking it is a filter. :-)
>
> So among other things I'm wondering if that leads to substantial increases in
> energy consumption anywhere.
>
> Thanks,
> Rafael
>
> ---
> kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c | 3 +++
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>
> Index: linux-pm/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-pm.orig/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> +++ linux-pm/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> @@ -101,6 +101,9 @@ static void sugov_update_commit(struct s
> if (sg_policy->next_freq == next_freq)
> return;
>
Maybe add a comment over here on why we are adding this workaround .
> + if (sg_policy->next_freq > next_freq)
> + next_freq = (sg_policy->next_freq + next_freq) >> 1;
> +
> sg_policy->next_freq = next_freq;
> sg_policy->last_freq_update_time = time;
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
--
viresh
prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-04-12 9:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-03-30 21:36 [RFC/RFT][PATCH] cpufreq: schedutil: Reduce frequencies slower Rafael J. Wysocki
2017-03-31 10:22 ` Juri Lelli
2017-03-31 21:51 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
[not found] ` <CAFEhuF=sWvuC3Q1NsqdRuiGzK4uD8ie5zbEnVsuGMdJK3y9e3Q@mail.gmail.com>
2017-04-01 23:29 ` Andres Oportus
2017-04-02 2:03 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2017-04-02 4:38 ` Andres Oportus
2017-04-11 21:23 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2017-04-12 9:01 ` Juri Lelli
2017-04-12 9:03 ` Viresh Kumar [this message]
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=20170412090334.GE5910@vireshk-i7 \
--to=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
--cc=joelaf@google.com \
--cc=john.ettedgui@gmail.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@arm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=morten.rasmussen@arm.com \
--cc=patrick.bellasi@arm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com \
--cc=vincent.guittot@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