From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To: Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>,
Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>,
Andres Oportus <andresoportus@google.com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>,
Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/2] cpufreq: schedutil: Make iowait boost more energy efficient
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 14:27:45 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170724085745.GU352@vireshk-i7> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170723155426.9170-1-joelaf@google.com>
On 23-07-17, 08:54, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> Currently the iowait_boost feature in schedutil makes the frequency go to max
> on iowait wakeups. This feature was added to handle a case that Peter
> described where the throughput of operations involving continuous I/O requests
> [1] is reduced due to running at a lower frequency, however the lower
> throughput itself causes utilization to be low and hence causing frequency to
> be low hence its "stuck".
>
> Instead of going to max, its also possible to achieve the same effect by
> ramping up to max if there are repeated in_iowait wakeups happening. This patch
> is an attempt to do that. We start from a lower frequency (policy->min)
> and double the boost for every consecutive iowait update until we reach the
> maximum iowait boost frequency (iowait_boost_max).
>
> I ran a synthetic test (continuous O_DIRECT writes in a loop) on an x86 machine
> with intel_pstate in passive mode using schedutil. In this test the iowait_boost
> value ramped from 800MHz to 4GHz in 60ms. The patch achieves the desired improved
> throughput as the existing behavior.
>
> [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9735885/
>
> Cc: Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>
> Cc: Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>
> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
> Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> Suggested-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
> Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>
> ---
> kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
> 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
You Send V7 [1-2]/2 twice, Are they different ?
For both the patches:
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
--
viresh
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-07-24 8:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-07-23 15:54 [PATCH v7 1/2] cpufreq: schedutil: Make iowait boost more energy efficient Joel Fernandes
2017-07-23 15:54 ` [PATCH v7 2/2] cpufreq: schedutil: Use unsigned int for iowait boost Joel Fernandes
2017-07-24 8:57 ` Viresh Kumar [this message]
2017-07-24 18:37 ` [PATCH v7 1/2] cpufreq: schedutil: Make iowait boost more energy efficient Joel Fernandes
2017-07-27 23:54 ` 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=20170724085745.GU352@vireshk-i7 \
--to=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
--cc=andresoportus@google.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=joelaf@google.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@arm.com \
--cc=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=patrick.bellasi@arm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.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