From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To: Wei Wang <wvw@google.com>
Cc: wei.vince.wang@gmail.com, dsmythies@telus.net,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
"Joel Fernandes (Google)" <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: schedutil: force frequency update when limits change
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2020 15:53:05 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200625102305.gu3xo4ovcqyd35vd@vireshk-i7> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200625064614.101183-1-wvw@google.com>
On 24-06-20, 23:46, Wei Wang wrote:
> To avoid reducing the frequency of a CPU prematurely, we skip reducing
> the frequency if the CPU had been busy recently.
>
> This should not be done when the limits of the policy are changed, for
> example due to thermal throttling. We should always get the frequency
> within the new limits as soon as possible.
>
> There was a fix in
> commit 600f5badb78c ("cpufreq: schedutil: Don't skip freq update when
> limits change") upstream which introduced another flag. However, the
> fix didn't address the case when next_freq is the same as previously
> voted, which is then checked in sugov_update_next_freq. As a result, the
> frequency would be stuck at low until the high demanding workload quits.
>
> test trace:
> kworker/u19:0-1872 ( 1872) [002] .... 347.878871: cpu_frequency_limits: min=600000 max=2348000 cpu_id=6
> dhry64-11525 (11525) [007] d.h2 347.880012: sugov_should_update_freq: thermal limit on policy6
> dhry64-11525 (11525) [007] d.h2 347.880012: sugov_deferred_update: policy6 skipped update
> dhry64-11525 (11525) [007] d.h2 347.884040: sugov_deferred_update: policy6 skipped update
I am not sure these are helpful in the logs as the code which
generated them isn't there in the kernel.
> ...
>
> This patch fixes this by skipping the check and forcing an update in
> this case. The second flag was kept as the limits_change flag could be
> updated in thermal kworker from another CPU.
I am sorry but I am not fully sure of what the problem is. Can you
describe that by giving an example with some random frequency, and
tell the expected and actual behavior ?
> Fixes: ecd288429126 ("cpufreq: schedutil: Don't set next_freq to UINT_MAX")
> Signed-off-by: Wei Wang <wvw@google.com>
> ---
> kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> index 7fbaee24c824..dc2cd768022e 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> @@ -102,11 +102,12 @@ static bool sugov_should_update_freq(struct sugov_policy *sg_policy, u64 time)
> static bool sugov_update_next_freq(struct sugov_policy *sg_policy, u64 time,
> unsigned int next_freq)
> {
> - if (sg_policy->next_freq == next_freq)
> + if (!sg_policy->need_freq_update && sg_policy->next_freq == next_freq)
AFAIU, if the next freq is same as currently programmed one, there is
no need to force update it.
> return false;
>
> sg_policy->next_freq = next_freq;
> sg_policy->last_freq_update_time = time;
> + sg_policy->need_freq_update = false;
>
> return true;
> }
> @@ -178,7 +179,6 @@ static unsigned int get_next_freq(struct sugov_policy *sg_policy,
> if (freq == sg_policy->cached_raw_freq && !sg_policy->need_freq_update)
> return sg_policy->next_freq;
>
> - sg_policy->need_freq_update = false;
> sg_policy->cached_raw_freq = freq;
> return cpufreq_driver_resolve_freq(policy, freq);
> }
> --
> 2.27.0.212.ge8ba1cc988-goog
--
viresh
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-06-25 10:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-06-25 6:46 [PATCH] cpufreq: schedutil: force frequency update when limits change Wei Wang
2020-06-25 10:23 ` Viresh Kumar [this message]
2020-06-25 20:47 ` Wei Wang
2020-06-26 2:14 ` Viresh Kumar
2020-06-26 2:32 ` Viresh Kumar
2020-06-26 4:15 ` Wei Wang
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=20200625102305.gu3xo4ovcqyd35vd@vireshk-i7 \
--to=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=dsmythies@telus.net \
--cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=wei.vince.wang@gmail.com \
--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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).