From: Anjali K <anjalik@linux.ibm.com>
To: Christian Loehle <christian.loehle@arm.com>,
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: Sat, 19 Oct 2024 00:02:10 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <a1cac0d3-c17d-478e-8a6b-40399a9428b6@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <fa2f15b1-1602-4fd0-80ff-9d33303b7b5a@arm.com>
On 08/10/24 15:26, Christian Loehle wrote:
> The default CPUFREQ_DBS_MIN_SAMPLING_INTERVAL is still to have 2 ticks between
> cpufreq updates on conservative/ondemand.
> What is your sampling_rate setting? What's your HZ?
The sampling_rate setting is 8000 us.
CONFIG_HZ is set to 250 Hz.
> Interestingly the context switch heavy benchmarks still show -6% don't they?
Yes, stress-ng and Unixbench Pipebased Context Switching benchmarks showed 6% regression. There was a high run-to-run variation in stress-ng and the Unixbench Pipebased Context Switching benchmarks of 15% and 5% respectively. This led me to doubt those results and so I re-ran these two benchmarks.
Each run below is an average of 10 iterations of the benchmarks.
The results are as follows:
+------------------------------------------------------+--------------------+----------+--------+---------+----------------+
| Benchmark | Baseline | Baseline + |Baseline|Baseline | Throughput |
| | (6.10.0-rc1 tip | patch | |+ patch |Difference %|
| | sched/core) | |stdev % | stdev % | |
| | avg throughput |avg throughput| | | |
+------------------------------------------------------+--------------------+--------------+--------+---------+------------+
|Unixbench Pipebased Context Switching throughput (lps)| 1 | 1.02 | 6.48 | 10.29 | 2.18 |
| | 1 | 1.19 | 13.74 | 8.22 | 19.20 |
| | 1 | 0.87 | 11.27 | 8.12 | -13.24 |
| | | | | | |
|stressng (bogo ops) | 1 | 1.01 | 2.68 | 1.90 | 1.35 |
| | 1 | 0.98 | 2.29 | 4.26 | -2.03 |
| | 1 | 0.99 | 2.01 | 2.24 | -0.56 |
+------------------------------------------------------+--------------------+--------------+--------+---------+------------+
There is a very high run-to-run variation in the Unixbench Pipebased Context
Switching benchmark and we can't conclude anything from this benchmark.
There is no regression in stress-ng on applying this patch on this system.
> Do you mind trying schedutil with a reasonable rate_limit_us, too?
I think the schedutil governor is not working on my system because the cpu
frequency shoots to the maximum (3.9GHz) even when the system is only 10%
loaded.
I ran stress-ng --cpu `nproc` --cpu-load 10.
The mpstat command shows that the system is 10% loaded:
10:55:25 AM CPU %usr %nice %sys %iowait %irq %soft %steal %guest %gnice %idle
10:56:50 AM all 10.03 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 89.76
But cpupower frequency-info showed that the system is at max frequency
root@ltczz10:~# cpupower frequency-info
<snipped>
available cpufreq governors: conservative ondemand performance schedutil
current policy: frequency should be within 2.30 GHz and 3.90 GHz.
The governor "schedutil" may decide which speed to use
within this range.
current CPU frequency: 3.90 GHz (asserted by call to hardware)
<snipped>
This is not expected, right?
I will work on finding out why the schedutil governor is not working on
this system and get back.
Thank you for your response,
Anjali K
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-10-18 18:32 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
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 [this message]
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=a1cac0d3-c17d-478e-8a6b-40399a9428b6@linux.ibm.com \
--to=anjalik@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=christian.loehle@arm.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