Re: [RFC/RFT] [PATCH 02/10] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Conditional frequency invariant accounting

From: Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>
To: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, bp@suse.de,
	lenb@kernel.org, rjw@rjwysocki.net, mgorman@techsingularity.net,
	x86@kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
	viresh.kumar@linaro.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC/RFT] [PATCH 02/10] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Conditional frequency invariant accounting
Date: Thu, 17 May 2018 08:41:32 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1526571692.11765.10.camel@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180517150418.GF22493@localhost.localdomain>

On Thu, 2018-05-17 at 17:04 +0200, Juri Lelli wrote:
> On 17/05/18 12:59, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > On 16/05/18 18:31, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > > On 16/05/18 17:47, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 05:19:25PM +0200, Juri Lelli wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > Anyway, FWIW I started testing this on a E5-2609 v3 and I'm
> > > > > not seeing
> > > > > hackbench regressions so far (running with schedutil
> > > > > governor).
> > > > 
> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haswell_(microarchitecture)#Serve
> > > > r_processors
> > > > 
> > > > Lists the E5 2609 v3 as not having turbo at all, which is
> > > > basically a
> > > > best case scenario for this patch.
> > > > 
> > > > As I wrote earlier today; when turbo exists, like say the 2699,
> > > > then
> > > > when we're busy we'll run at U=2.3/3.6 ~ .64, which might
> > > > confuse
> > > > things.
> > > 
> > > Indeed. I was mostly trying to see if adding this to the tick
> > > might
> > > introduce noticeable overhead.
> > 
> > Blindly testing on an i5-5200U (2.2/2.7 GHz) gave the following
> > 
> > # perf bench sched messaging --pipe --thread --group 2 --loop 20000
> > 
> >                       count       mean       std     min     50%   
> >     95%       99%     max
> > hostname
> > kernel                                                             
> >                 
> > i5-5200U
> > test_after    30.0  13.843433  0.590605  12.369  13.810  14.85635  
> > 15.08205  15.127
> >          test_before   30.0  13.571167  0.999798  12.228  13.302  1
> > 5.57805  16.40029  16.690
> > 
> > It might be interesting to see what happens when using a single CPU
> > only?
> > 
> > Also, I will look at how the util signals look when a single CPU is
> > busy..
> 
> And this is showing where the problem is (as you were saying [1]):
> 
> https://gist.github.com/jlelli/f5438221186e5ed3660194e4f645fe93
> 
> Just look at the plots (and ignore setup).
> 
> First one (pid:4483) shows a single task busy running on a single
> CPU,
> which seems to be able to sustain turbo for 5 sec. So task util
> reaches
> ~1024.
> 
> Second one (pid:4283) shows the same task, but running together with
> other 3 tasks (each one pinned to a different CPU). In this case util
> saturates at ~943, which is due to the fact that max freq is still
> considered to be the turbo one. :/

One more point to note. Even if we calculate some utilization based on
the freq-invariant and arrive at a P-state, we will not be able to
control any P-state in turbo region (not even as a cap) on several
Intel processors using PERF_CTL MSRs.

> 
> [1] https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=152646464017810&w=2