From: luca abeni <luca.abeni@santannapisa.it>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>,
mingo@redhat.com, rjw@rjwysocki.net, viresh.kumar@linaro.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
tglx@linutronix.de, vincent.guittot@linaro.org,
rostedt@goodmis.org, claudio@evidence.eu.com,
tommaso.cucinotta@santannapisa.it, bristot@redhat.com,
mathieu.poirier@linaro.org, tkjos@android.com, joelaf@google.com,
andresoportus@google.com, morten.rasmussen@arm.com,
dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, patrick.bellasi@arm.com,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 8/8] sched/deadline: make bandwidth enforcement scale-invariant
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 15:50:20 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170726155020.18d773a9@nowhere> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170725135105.akkwwsf3r65jy3pa@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 15:51:05 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 09:03:08AM +0200, Luca Abeni wrote:
>
> > > I'm still confused..
> > >
> > > So GRUB does:
> > >
> > > dq = Uact -dt
> > >
> > > right?
> >
> > Right. This is what the original (single processor) GRUB did. And
> > this was used by the "GRUB-PA" algorithm:
> > https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Giuseppe_Lipari/publication/220800940_Using_resource_reservation_techniques_for_power-aware_scheduling/links/09e41513639b2703fc000000.pdf
> >
> > (basically, GRUB-PA uses GRUB for reclaiming, and scales the CPU
> > frequency based on Uact)
> >
> >
> > > Now, you do DVFS using that same Uact. If we lower the clock, we
> > > need more time, so would we then not end up with something like:
> > >
> > > dq = 1/Uact -dt
> >
> > Well, in the GRUB-PA algorithm GRUB reclaiming is the mechanism
> > used to give more runtime to the task... Since Uact is < 1, doing
> > dq = - Uact * dt
> > means that we decrease the current runtime by a smaller amount of
> > time. And so we end up giving more runtime to the task: instead of
> > giving dl_runtime every dl_period, we give "dl_runtime / Uact" every
> > dl_period... And since the CPU is slower (by a ratio Uact), this is
> > equivalent to giving dl_runtime at the maximum CPU speed / frequency
> > (at least, in theory :).
> >
> >
> > > After all; our budget assignment is such that we're able to
> > > complete our work at max freq. Therefore, when we lower the
> > > frequency, we'll have to increase budget pro rata, otherwise
> > > we'll not complete our work and badness happens.
> >
> > Right. But instead of increasing dl_runtime, GRUB-PA decreases the
> > amount of time accounted to the current runtime.
> >
> >
> > > Say we have a 1 Ghz part and Uact=0.5 we'd select 500 Mhz and need
> > > double the time to complete.
> > >
> > > Now, if we fold these two together, you'd get:
> > >
> > > dq = Uact/Uact -dt = -dt
> >
> > Not sure why " / Uact"... According to the GRUB-PA algorithm, you
> > just do
> > dq = - Uact * dt = -0.5dt
> > and you end up giving the CPU to the task for 2 * dl_runtime every
> > dl_period (as expected)
>
> Yeah, I seem to have gone off the rails there... Bah I'm terminally
> confused now. Let me try and get my brain the right way up.
This stuff always confuses me too... :)
The parts that gives me more headaches is how to combine GRUB-PA with
non-reclaiming tasks, and how to cope with "real world issues" (such as
an actual DVFS frequency different from the theoretical one, GRUB
reclaiming less than 100% of the CPU time, etc...)
Anyway, Claudio is running some experiments with this patchset,
measuring power saving and missed deadlines for various sets of
periodic real-time tasks... We hope to present the results at RTLWS.
Luca
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-07-26 13:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 45+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-07-05 8:58 [RFC PATCH v1 0/8] SCHED_DEADLINE freq/cpu invariance and OPP selection Juri Lelli
2017-07-05 8:58 ` [RFC PATCH v1 1/8] sched/cpufreq_schedutil: make use of DEADLINE utilization signal Juri Lelli
2017-07-07 7:20 ` Viresh Kumar
2017-07-05 8:58 ` [RFC PATCH v1 2/8] sched/deadline: move cpu frequency selection triggering points Juri Lelli
2017-07-07 7:21 ` Viresh Kumar
2017-07-05 8:59 ` [RFC PATCH v1 3/8] sched/cpufreq_schedutil: make worker kthread be SCHED_DEADLINE Juri Lelli
2017-07-07 3:56 ` Joel Fernandes
2017-07-07 10:43 ` Juri Lelli
2017-07-07 10:46 ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-07-07 10:53 ` Juri Lelli
2017-07-07 13:11 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2017-07-07 21:58 ` Steven Rostedt
2017-07-07 22:07 ` Joel Fernandes
2017-07-07 22:15 ` Steven Rostedt
2017-07-07 22:57 ` Joel Fernandes
2017-07-11 12:37 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-07-07 7:21 ` Viresh Kumar
2017-07-11 16:18 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-07-11 17:02 ` Juri Lelli
2017-07-05 8:59 ` [RFC PATCH v1 4/8] sched/cpufreq_schedutil: split utilization signals Juri Lelli
2017-07-07 3:26 ` Joel Fernandes
2017-07-07 8:58 ` Viresh Kumar
2017-07-07 10:59 ` Juri Lelli
2017-07-10 7:46 ` Joel Fernandes
2017-07-10 7:05 ` Viresh Kumar
2017-07-05 8:59 ` [RFC PATCH v1 5/8] sched/cpufreq_schedutil: always consider all CPUs when deciding next freq Juri Lelli
2017-07-07 8:59 ` Viresh Kumar
2017-07-11 16:17 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-07-11 17:18 ` Juri Lelli
2017-07-05 8:59 ` [RFC PATCH v1 6/8] sched/sched.h: remove sd arch_scale_freq_capacity parameter Juri Lelli
2017-07-05 8:59 ` [RFC PATCH v1 7/8] sched/sched.h: move arch_scale_{freq,cpu}_capacity outside CONFIG_SMP Juri Lelli
2017-07-07 22:04 ` Steven Rostedt
2017-07-05 8:59 ` [RFC PATCH v1 8/8] sched/deadline: make bandwidth enforcement scale-invariant Juri Lelli
2017-07-19 7:21 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-07-19 9:20 ` Juri Lelli
2017-07-19 11:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-07-19 11:16 ` Juri Lelli
2017-07-24 16:43 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-07-25 7:03 ` Luca Abeni
2017-07-25 13:51 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-07-26 13:50 ` luca abeni [this message]
2017-07-06 15:57 ` [RFC PATCH v1 0/8] SCHED_DEADLINE freq/cpu invariance and OPP selection Steven Rostedt
2017-07-06 16:08 ` Juri Lelli
2017-07-06 16:15 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-07-06 21:08 ` 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=20170726155020.18d773a9@nowhere \
--to=luca.abeni@santannapisa.it \
--cc=andresoportus@google.com \
--cc=bristot@redhat.com \
--cc=claudio@evidence.eu.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=joelaf@google.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@arm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathieu.poirier@linaro.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=morten.rasmussen@arm.com \
--cc=patrick.bellasi@arm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tkjos@android.com \
--cc=tommaso.cucinotta@santannapisa.it \
--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).