Re: [PATCH v4 1/6] x86,sched: Add support for frequency invariance

Giovanni Gherdovich
2019-12-06T11:57:52Z

Hello Ionela,

thanks for your review. Comments below.

> On Wednesday 13 Nov 2019 at 13:46:49 (+0100), Giovanni Gherdovich
> wrote:
> [...]
> > ---
> > arch/x86/include/asm/topology.h | 23 ++++++
> > arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c | 176 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > kernel/sched/core.c | 1 +
> > kernel/sched/sched.h | 7 ++
> > 4 files changed, 206 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/topology.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/topology.h
> > index 4b14d2318251..9b3aca463c8f 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/topology.h
> > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/topology.h
> > @@ -193,4 +193,27 @@ static inline void sched_clear_itmt_support(void)
> > }
> > #endif /* CONFIG_SCHED_MC_PRIO */
> >
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> > +#include <asm/cpufeature.h>
> > +
> > +DECLARE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE(arch_scale_freq_key);
> > +
> > +#define arch_scale_freq_invariant() static_branch_likely(&arch_scale_freq_key)
> > +
> > +DECLARE_PER_CPU(unsigned long, arch_cpu_freq);
> > +
> > +static inline long arch_scale_freq_capacity(int cpu)
> > +{
> > + if (arch_scale_freq_invariant())
> > + return per_cpu(arch_cpu_freq, cpu);
> > +
>
> I see further down in the code that you gate the setting of
> arch_cpu_freq by arch_scale_freq_invariant() as well, so it might be
> cleaner to remove the condition here and just return the value of the
> per_cpu variable. That variable should also have an initial value of
> SCHED_FREQ_CAPACITY_SCALE (1024) and if it happens that frequency
> invariance is not enabled, then 1024 will always be returned as no code
> would have set it to anything else.

You're correct. Currently I'm not initializing arch_cpu_freq
explicitely, but
if I set it to 1024 than I can remove the check for
arch_scale_freq_invariant()
in the function above (arch_scale_freq_capacity) and always return
arch_cpu_freq from there no matter what. Will do that in v5.

>
> Also, arm64 names this cpu variable freq_scale instead of
> arch_cpu_freq.
> It would be nice to have the same name here, to easily understand
> similarities in this functionality on both sides.
>
> If arch_cpu_freq seems more complete, you might want to rename it to
> arch_cpu_freq_scale, although longer, to clearly state that this is a
> scale value and not an absolute frequency value.
>
> > + return 1024 /* SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE */;
> > +}
> > +#define arch_scale_freq_capacity arch_scale_freq_capacity
> > +
> > +extern void arch_scale_freq_tick(void);
> > +#define arch_scale_freq_tick arch_scale_freq_tick
> > +
> > +#endif
> > +
> > #endif /* _ASM_X86_TOPOLOGY_H */
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c b/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
> > index 69881b2d446c..814d7900779d 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
> [...]
> > +
> > +DEFINE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE(arch_scale_freq_key);
> > +
> > +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(u64, arch_prev_aperf);
> > +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(u64, arch_prev_mperf);
> > +static u64 arch_max_freq = SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE;
> > +
>
> Same here: the scale suffix would make the math below clearer.

Agreed, in v5 will rename the variabled arch_cpu_freq and arch_max_freq
to
include "scale".

>
> [...]
> > +static void intel_set_cpu_max_freq(void)
> > +{
> > + /*
> > + * TODO: add support for:
> > + *
> > + * - Xeon Gold/Platinum
> > + * - Xeon Phi (KNM, KNL)
> > + * - Atom Goldmont
> > + * - Atom Silvermont
> > + *
> > + * which all now get by default arch_max_freq = SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE
> > + */
> > +
> > + static_branch_enable(&arch_scale_freq_key);
> > +
> > + if (turbo_disabled() ||
> > + x86_match_cpu(has_skx_turbo_ratio_limits) ||
> > + x86_match_cpu(has_knl_turbo_ratio_limits) ||
> > + x86_match_cpu(has_glm_turbo_ratio_limits))
> > + return;
> > +
> > + core_set_cpu_max_freq();
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void init_scale_freq(void *arg)
>
> This function does not initialise the frequency scale factor so the
> name
> is confusing to me. How about init_counters_refs or
> init_fie_counters_refs
> (fie = frequency invariance engine)?

Good point too, I'll rename init_scale_freq() following your suggestion.

>
> > +{
> > + u64 aperf, mperf;
> > +
> > + rdmsrl(MSR_IA32_APERF, aperf);
> > + rdmsrl(MSR_IA32_MPERF, mperf);
> > +
> > + this_cpu_write(arch_prev_aperf, aperf);
> > + this_cpu_write(arch_prev_mperf, mperf);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void set_cpu_max_freq(void)
>
> Similarly for the name of this function: it seems to both set the max
> frequency ratio and initialise the references to the aperf and mperf
> counters. Also, in the process it enables frequency invariance.
> So this function seems to do all the preparation work for frequency
> invariance so a more generic name (init_fie/init_frequency_invariance)
> would work better in my opinion.

Yeah I agree, names all around here are not great, will put more thought
into
it for v5. Thanks for the names suggestions.

>
> > +{
> > + if (smp_processor_id() != 0 || !boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_APERFMPERF))
> > + return;
> > +
> > + if (boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_INTEL)
> > + intel_set_cpu_max_freq();
>
> I see above that you enable the static key (and therefore frequency
> invariance before setting the max frequency ratio (if possible) and
> before you initialise the counter references. Is there any reason for
> doing this?
>
> In my mind the more clear process is:
> - Obtain and set max frequency ratio
> - Initialise counter references
> - If all above goes well enable the static key (and frequency
> invariance)

This is a fair point; mine was a deliberate choice but you're the second
person making this remark (Peter Zijlstra also suggested I find the max
frequency before I set the static key), so it appears this design is
unpopular
enough to warrant a change in v5.

The initialization of counter references doesn't worry me: once you
check the
presence of the [AM]PERF registers with
boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_APERFMPERF),
there isn't much that can go wrong when reading their value.

Reading and setting the max frequency ratio before or after enabling
frequency
invariance is more opinionated. My view is that if you fail to obtain
the max
frequency ratio from the various MSRs, that means the processor is not
among
the list of CPUs I've enumerated in the code, but some other model that
has a
different method (MSR semantics) for gathering the max freq value. Eg:
if
Intel next year makes a new processor where the max freq is written in
some
different register (happened plenty of times in the past), and I'm not
quick
to send a patch for that, that part of the initialization would fail.

What to do at that point? Bail out entirely from frequency invariance?
In my
opinion that would be too conservative, I prefer to give that machine a
default max freq ratio of 1024 (max frequency == base frequency, i.e.
pretend
it doesn't have any turbo).

In other words I think that a little frequency invariance is better than
no
frequency invariance, and the only really essential ingredient is
X86_FEATURE_APERFMPERF to read the current frequency (which I check
before
setting the static key).

But again: you and one other person have already suggested to do it the
other
way, and mine is only a mild preference, so I'll change that part in v5.

Thanks,
Giovanni