From: Hongyan Xia <hongyan.xia2@arm.com>
To: Qais Yousef <qyousef@layalina.io>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>, Wei Wang <wvw@google.com>,
Rick Yiu <rickyiu@google.com>,
Chung-Kai Mei <chungkai@google.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] sched/schedutil: Ignore update requests for short running tasks
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2023 10:42:46 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <f61a3329-4223-4995-8732-030430d19ea4@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20231208015242.385103-4-qyousef@layalina.io>
Hi Qais,
On 08/12/2023 01:52, Qais Yousef wrote:
> Ignore freq updates to honour uclamp requests if the task is short
> running. It won't run long enough to see the changes, so avoid the
> unnecessary work and noise.
>
> Make sure SCHED_CPUFREQ_PERF_HINTS flag is set in task_tick_fair() so
> that we can do correction action if the task continued to run such that
> it is no longer considered a short task.
>
> Should address the problem of noisy short running tasks unnecessary
> causing frequency spikes when waking up on a CPU that is running a busy
> task capped by UCLAMP_MAX.
Actually, an occasional spike is not a big problem to me.
What is a big concern is a normal task and a uclamp_max task running on
the same rq. If the uclamp_max task is 1024 but capped by uclamp_max at
the lowest OPP, and the normal task has no uclamp but a duty cycle, then
when the normal task wakes up on the rq, it'll be the highest OPP. When
it sleeps, the ulamp_max is back and at the lowest OPP. This square-wave
problem to me is a much bigger concern than an infrequent spike. If
CONFIG_HZ is 1000, this square wave's frequency is 500 switching between
highest and lowest OPP, which is definitely unacceptable.
The problem I think with filtering is, under this condition, should we
filter out the lowest OPP or the highest? Neither sounds like a good
answer because neither is a short-running task and the correct answer
might be somewhere in between.
Sorry to ramble on this again and again, but I think filtering is
addressing the symptom, not the cause. The cause is we have no idea
under what condition a util_avg was achieved. The 1024 task in the
previous example would be much better if we extend it into
[1024, achieved at uclamp_min 0, achieved at uclamp_max 300]
If we know 1024 was done under uclamp_max of 300, then we know we don't
need to raise to the max OPP. So far, we carry around a lot of different
new variables but not these two which we really need.
>
> Move helper functions to access task_util_est() and related attributes
> to sched.h to enable using it from cpufreq_schedutil.c
>
> Signed-off-by: Qais Yousef (Google) <qyousef@layalina.io>
> ---
> kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c | 59 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> kernel/sched/fair.c | 24 +------------
> kernel/sched/sched.h | 22 ++++++++++++
> 3 files changed, 82 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
>
> [...]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-12-08 10:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-12-08 1:52 [PATCH 0/4] sched: cpufreq: Remove uclamp max-aggregation Qais Yousef
2023-12-08 1:52 ` [PATCH 1/4] sched/fair: Be less aggressive in calling cpufreq_update_util() Qais Yousef
2023-12-08 10:05 ` Lukasz Luba
2023-12-10 20:51 ` Qais Yousef
2023-12-11 7:56 ` Lukasz Luba
2023-12-12 12:10 ` Qais Yousef
2023-12-14 8:19 ` Lukasz Luba
2023-12-11 18:47 ` Christian Loehle
2023-12-12 12:34 ` Qais Yousef
2023-12-12 13:09 ` Christian Loehle
2023-12-12 13:29 ` Qais Yousef
2023-12-12 10:46 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2023-12-12 12:35 ` Qais Yousef
2023-12-12 18:22 ` Hongyan Xia
2023-12-12 10:47 ` Hongyan Xia
2023-12-12 11:06 ` Vincent Guittot
2023-12-12 12:40 ` Qais Yousef
2023-12-29 0:25 ` Qais Yousef
2024-01-03 13:41 ` Vincent Guittot
2024-01-04 19:40 ` Qais Yousef
2023-12-18 8:51 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2023-12-17 21:44 ` Qais Yousef
2023-12-08 1:52 ` [PATCH 2/4] sched/uclamp: Remove rq max aggregation Qais Yousef
2023-12-11 0:08 ` Qais Yousef
2023-12-08 1:52 ` [PATCH 3/4] sched/schedutil: Ignore update requests for short running tasks Qais Yousef
2023-12-08 10:42 ` Hongyan Xia [this message]
2023-12-10 22:22 ` Qais Yousef
2023-12-11 11:15 ` Hongyan Xia
2023-12-12 12:23 ` Qais Yousef
2023-12-08 1:52 ` [PATCH 4/4] sched/documentation: Remove reference to max aggregation Qais Yousef
2023-12-18 8:19 ` [PATCH 0/4] sched: cpufreq: Remove uclamp max-aggregation Dietmar Eggemann
2023-12-17 21:23 ` 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=f61a3329-4223-4995-8732-030430d19ea4@arm.com \
--to=hongyan.xia2@arm.com \
--cc=chungkai@google.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lukasz.luba@arm.com \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=qyousef@layalina.io \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=rickyiu@google.com \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
--cc=wvw@google.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