From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 06/15] sched/core: uclamp: enforce last task UCLAMP_MAX
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2018 18:08:48 +0100
Message-ID: <20181111170848.GB3038@worktop>
References: <20181029183311.29175-1-patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
 <20181029183311.29175-8-patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20181029183311.29175-8-patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>, Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>, Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>, Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com>, Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>, Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>, Todd Kjos <tkjos@google.com>, Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>, Steve Muckle <smuckle@google.com>, Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 06:33:01PM +0000, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> When a util_max clamped task sleeps, its clamp constraints are removed
> from the CPU. However, the blocked utilization on that CPU can still be
> higher than the max clamp value enforced while that task was running.
> 
> The release of a util_max clamp when a CPU is going to be idle could
> thus allow unwanted CPU frequency increases while tasks are not
> running. This can happen, for example, when a frequency update is
> triggered from another CPU of the same frequency domain.
> In this case, when we aggregate the utilization of all the CPUs in a
> shared frequency domain, schedutil can still see the full not clamped
> blocked utilization of all the CPUs and thus, eventually, increase the
> frequency.

> @@ -810,6 +811,28 @@ static inline void uclamp_cpu_update(struct rq *rq, unsigned int clamp_id)
>  		if (max_value >= SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE)
>  			break;
>  	}
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * Just for the UCLAMP_MAX value, in case there are no RUNNABLE
> +	 * task, we want to keep the CPU clamped to the last task's clamp
> +	 * value. This is to avoid frequency spikes to MAX when one CPU, with
> +	 * an high blocked utilization, sleeps and another CPU, in the same
> +	 * frequency domain, do not see anymore the clamp on the first CPU.
> +	 *
> +	 * The UCLAMP_FLAG_IDLE is set whenever we detect, from the above
> +	 * loop, that there are no more RUNNABLE taks on that CPU.
> +	 * In this case we enforce the CPU util_max to that of the last
> +	 * dequeued task.
> +	 */
> +	if (max_value < 0) {
> +		if (clamp_id == UCLAMP_MAX) {
> +			rq->uclamp.flags |= UCLAMP_FLAG_IDLE;
> +			max_value = last_clamp_value;
> +		} else {
> +			max_value = uclamp_none(UCLAMP_MIN);
> +		}
> +	}
> +
>  	rq->uclamp.value[clamp_id] = max_value;
>  }

*groan*, so it could be jet-lag, but I find the comment really hard to
understand.

Would not something like:

	/*
	 * Avoid blocked utilization pushing up the frequency when we go
	 * idle (which drops the max-clamp) by retaining the last known
	 * max-clamp.
	 */

Be more clear?