Linux Power Management development
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Christian Loehle <christian.loehle@arm.com>
To: Qais Yousef <qyousef@layalina.io>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
	Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
	Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
	Hongyan Xia <hongyan.xia2@arm.com>,
	John Stultz <jstultz@google.com>,
	linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7] sched: Consolidate cpufreq updates
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2024 21:34:19 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <6e4a4605-f6c5-4948-ac38-c4ddf4990754@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240728184551.42133-1-qyousef@layalina.io>

On 7/28/24 19:45, Qais Yousef wrote:
> Improve the interaction with cpufreq governors by making the
> cpufreq_update_util() calls more intentional.
> 
> At the moment we send them when load is updated for CFS, bandwidth for
> DL and at enqueue/dequeue for RT. But this can lead to too many updates
> sent in a short period of time and potentially be ignored at a critical
> moment due to the rate_limit_us in schedutil.
> 
> For example, simultaneous task enqueue on the CPU where 2nd task is
> bigger and requires higher freq. The trigger to cpufreq_update_util() by
> the first task will lead to dropping the 2nd request until tick. Or
> another CPU in the same policy triggers a freq update shortly after.
> 
> Updates at enqueue for RT are not strictly required. Though they do help
> to reduce the delay for switching the frequency and the potential
> observation of lower frequency during this delay. But current logic
> doesn't intentionally (at least to my understanding) try to speed up the
> request.
> 
> To help reduce the amount of cpufreq updates and make them more
> purposeful, consolidate them into these locations:
> 
> 1. context_switch()
> 2. task_tick_fair()
> 3. sched_balance_update_blocked_averages()
> 4. on sched_setscheduler() syscall that changes policy or uclamp values
> 5. on check_preempt_wakeup_fair() if wakeup preemption failed
> 6. on __add_running_bw() to guarantee DL bandwidth requirements.
> 

Actually now reading that code again reminded me, there is another
iowait boost change for intel_pstate.
intel_pstate has either intel_pstate_update_util() or
intel_pstate_update_util_hwp().
Both have
	if (smp_processor_id() != cpu->cpu)
		return;
Now since we move that update from enqueue to context_switch() that will
always be false.
I don't think that was deliberate but rather to simplify intel_pstate
synchronization, although !mcq device IO won't be boosted which you
could argue is good.
Just wanted to mention that, doesn't have to be a bad, but surely some
behavior change.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2024-09-11 20:34 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-07-28 18:45 [PATCH v7] sched: Consolidate cpufreq updates Qais Yousef
2024-07-29 16:01 ` Metin Kaya
2024-08-01 12:22   ` Qais Yousef
2024-08-05 15:35 ` Christian Loehle
2024-08-09  1:13   ` Qais Yousef
2024-08-13  8:25   ` Vincent Guittot
2024-08-13  8:27     ` Vincent Guittot
2024-08-13 16:26       ` Christian Loehle
2024-08-13 16:43         ` Vincent Guittot
2024-08-13 16:56           ` Christian Loehle
2024-09-01 17:51       ` Qais Yousef
2024-09-02 12:30         ` Vincent Guittot
2024-09-02 12:35           ` Christian Loehle
2024-09-02 12:43             ` Vincent Guittot
2024-09-02 12:58           ` Qais Yousef
2024-09-02 13:34             ` Qais Yousef
2024-09-02 13:40               ` Christian Loehle
2024-09-02 13:36             ` Vincent Guittot
2024-09-02 20:43               ` Qais Yousef
2024-09-03  6:54                 ` Vincent Guittot
2024-08-13 10:02 ` Vincent Guittot
2024-09-01 18:01   ` Qais Yousef
2024-09-03 12:48     ` Vincent Guittot
2024-09-11 20:34 ` Christian Loehle [this message]
2024-09-12 11:33   ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2025-02-09 22:34     ` Qais Yousef
2024-10-07 17:20 ` Anjali K
2024-10-08  9:56   ` Christian Loehle
2024-10-10 18:32     ` Christian Loehle
2024-10-18 18:32     ` Anjali K
2024-11-25  6:32       ` Anjali K
2025-02-09 22:33         ` Qais Yousef
2024-10-11  9:34 ` Christian Loehle
2025-02-09 22:41   ` Qais Yousef

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=6e4a4605-f6c5-4948-ac38-c4ddf4990754@arm.com \
    --to=christian.loehle@arm.com \
    --cc=bsegall@google.com \
    --cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
    --cc=hongyan.xia2@arm.com \
    --cc=jstultz@google.com \
    --cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mgorman@suse.de \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=qyousef@layalina.io \
    --cc=rafael@kernel.org \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
    --cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
    --cc=vschneid@redhat.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