From: douglas.raillard@arm.com
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org,
quentin.perret@arm.com, douglas.raillard@arm.com,
patrick.bellasi@arm.com, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com
Subject: [RFC PATCH 6/7] sched/cpufreq: Improve sugov_cpu_is_busy accuracy
Date: Wed, 8 May 2019 18:43:00 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190508174301.4828-7-douglas.raillard@arm.com> (raw)
Message-ID: <20190508174300.CHNLor7uGT6WNs0IvCuVhAJxLt-VC3uvZVh3ZU00OMk@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190508174301.4828-1-douglas.raillard@arm.com>
From: Douglas RAILLARD <douglas.raillard@arm.com>
Avoid assuming a CPU is busy when it has begun being idle before
get_next_freq() is called. This is achieved by making sure the CPU will
not be detected as busy by other CPUs whenever its utilization is
decreasing.
Signed-off-by: Douglas RAILLARD <douglas.raillard@arm.com>
---
kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
1 file changed, 37 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
index a12b7e5bc028..ce4b90cafbb5 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
@@ -62,6 +62,7 @@ struct sugov_cpu {
/* The field below is for single-CPU policies only: */
#ifdef CONFIG_NO_HZ_COMMON
unsigned long saved_idle_calls;
+ unsigned long previous_util;
#endif
};
@@ -181,14 +182,35 @@ static bool sugov_cpu_is_busy(struct sugov_cpu *sg_cpu)
return ret;
}
-static void sugov_cpu_is_busy_update(struct sugov_cpu *sg_cpu)
+static void sugov_cpu_is_busy_update(struct sugov_cpu *sg_cpu,
+ unsigned long util)
{
unsigned long idle_calls = tick_nohz_get_idle_calls_cpu(sg_cpu->cpu);
sg_cpu->saved_idle_calls = idle_calls;
+
+ /*
+ * Make sure that this CPU will not be immediately considered as busy in
+ * cases where the CPU has already entered an idle state. In that case,
+ * the number of idle_calls will not vary anymore until it exits idle,
+ * which would lead sugov_cpu_is_busy() to say that this CPU is busy,
+ * because it has not (re)entered idle since the last time we looked at
+ * it.
+ * Assuming cpu0 and cpu1 are in the same policy, that will make sure
+ * this sequence of events leads to right cpu1 business status from
+ * get_next_freq(cpu=1)
+ * cpu0: [enter idle] -> [get_next_freq] -> [doing nothing] -> [wakeup]
+ * cpu1: ... -> [get_next_freq] -> ...
+ */
+ if (util <= sg_cpu->previous_util)
+ sg_cpu->saved_idle_calls--;
+
+ sg_cpu->previous_util = util;
}
#else
static inline bool sugov_cpu_is_busy(struct sugov_cpu *sg_cpu) { return false; }
-static void sugov_cpu_is_busy_update(struct sugov_cpu *sg_cpu) {}
+static void sugov_cpu_is_busy_update(struct sugov_cpu *sg_cpu
+ unsigned long util)
+{}
#endif /* CONFIG_NO_HZ_COMMON */
/**
@@ -507,10 +529,9 @@ static void sugov_update_single(struct update_util_data *hook, u64 time,
if (!sugov_should_update_freq(sg_policy, time))
return;
- busy = sugov_cpu_is_busy(sg_cpu);
- sugov_cpu_is_busy_update(sg_cpu);
-
util = sugov_get_util(sg_cpu);
+ busy = sugov_cpu_is_busy(sg_cpu);
+ sugov_cpu_is_busy_update(sg_cpu, util);
max = sg_cpu->max;
util = sugov_iowait_apply(sg_cpu, time, util, max);
next_f = get_next_freq(sg_policy, util, max);
@@ -545,12 +566,15 @@ static unsigned int sugov_next_freq_shared(struct sugov_cpu *sg_cpu, u64 time)
struct cpufreq_policy *policy = sg_policy->policy;
unsigned long util = 0, max = 1;
unsigned int j;
+ unsigned long sg_cpu_util = 0;
for_each_cpu(j, policy->cpus) {
struct sugov_cpu *j_sg_cpu = &per_cpu(sugov_cpu, j);
unsigned long j_util, j_max;
j_util = sugov_get_util(j_sg_cpu);
+ if (j_sg_cpu == sg_cpu)
+ sg_cpu_util = j_util;
j_max = j_sg_cpu->max;
j_util = sugov_iowait_apply(j_sg_cpu, time, j_util, j_max);
@@ -560,6 +584,14 @@ static unsigned int sugov_next_freq_shared(struct sugov_cpu *sg_cpu, u64 time)
}
}
+ /*
+ * Only update the business status if we are looking at the CPU for
+ * which a utilization change triggered a call to get_next_freq(). This
+ * way, we don't affect the "busy" status of CPUs that don't have any
+ * change in utilization.
+ */
+ sugov_cpu_is_busy_update(sg_cpu, sg_cpu_util);
+
return get_next_freq(sg_policy, util, max);
}
--
2.21.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-05-08 17:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-05-08 17:42 [RFC PATCH 0/7] sched/cpufreq: Make schedutil energy aware douglas.raillard
2019-05-08 17:42 ` douglas.raillard
2019-05-08 17:42 ` [RFC PATCH 1/7] PM: Introduce em_pd_get_higher_freq() douglas.raillard
2019-05-08 17:42 ` douglas.raillard
2019-05-16 12:42 ` Patrick Bellasi
2019-05-16 12:42 ` Patrick Bellasi
2019-05-16 13:01 ` Quentin Perret
2019-05-16 13:01 ` Quentin Perret
2019-05-16 13:22 ` Patrick Bellasi
2019-05-16 13:22 ` Patrick Bellasi
2019-06-19 16:08 ` Douglas Raillard
2019-06-20 13:04 ` Patrick Bellasi
2019-06-21 10:17 ` Quentin Perret
2019-06-21 10:22 ` Quentin Perret
2019-05-16 13:06 ` Douglas Raillard
2019-05-16 13:06 ` Douglas Raillard
2019-05-08 17:42 ` [RFC PATCH 2/7] sched/cpufreq: Attach perf domain to sugov policy douglas.raillard
2019-05-08 17:42 ` douglas.raillard
2019-05-08 17:42 ` [RFC PATCH 3/7] sched/cpufreq: Hook em_pd_get_higher_power() into get_next_freq() douglas.raillard
2019-05-08 17:42 ` douglas.raillard
2019-05-08 17:42 ` [RFC PATCH 4/7] sched/cpufreq: Move up sugov_cpu_is_busy() douglas.raillard
2019-05-08 17:42 ` douglas.raillard
2019-05-08 17:42 ` [RFC PATCH 5/7] sched/cpufreq: sugov_cpu_is_busy for shared policy douglas.raillard
2019-05-08 17:42 ` douglas.raillard
2019-05-08 17:43 ` douglas.raillard [this message]
2019-05-08 17:43 ` [RFC PATCH 6/7] sched/cpufreq: Improve sugov_cpu_is_busy accuracy douglas.raillard
2019-05-16 12:55 ` Patrick Bellasi
2019-05-16 12:55 ` Patrick Bellasi
2019-06-19 16:19 ` Douglas Raillard
2019-06-20 11:05 ` Patrick Bellasi
2019-05-08 17:43 ` [RFC PATCH 7/7] sched/cpufreq: Boost schedutil frequency ramp up douglas.raillard
2019-05-08 17:43 ` douglas.raillard
2019-05-13 7:12 ` [RFC PATCH 0/7] sched/cpufreq: Make schedutil energy aware Viresh Kumar
2019-05-13 7:12 ` Viresh Kumar
2019-05-13 13:52 ` Douglas Raillard
2019-05-13 13:52 ` Douglas Raillard
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=20190508174301.4828-7-douglas.raillard@arm.com \
--to=douglas.raillard@arm.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=patrick.bellasi@arm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=quentin.perret@arm.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).