Linux Power Management development
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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


  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