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.
next prev 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