From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753639AbdCOOon (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Mar 2017 10:44:43 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:48104 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752147AbdCOOol (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Mar 2017 10:44:41 -0400 Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 14:44:49 +0000 From: Juri Lelli To: Joel Fernandes Cc: Patrick Bellasi , "Joel Fernandes (Google)" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , "Rafael J . Wysocki" , Andres Oportus Subject: Re: [RFC v3 5/5] sched/{core,cpufreq_schedutil}: add capacity clamping for RT/DL tasks Message-ID: <20170315144449.GH31499@e106622-lin> References: <1488292722-19410-1-git-send-email-patrick.bellasi@arm.com> <1488292722-19410-6-git-send-email-patrick.bellasi@arm.com> <20170315114052.GB18557@e110439-lin> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Joel, On 15/03/17 05:59, Joel Fernandes wrote: > On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 4:40 AM, Patrick Bellasi > wrote: > > On 13-Mar 03:08, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote: > >> Hi Patrick, > >> > >> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 6:38 AM, Patrick Bellasi > >> wrote: > >> > Currently schedutil enforce a maximum OPP when RT/DL tasks are RUNNABLE. > >> > Such a mandatory policy can be made more tunable from userspace thus > >> > allowing for example to define a reasonable max capacity (i.e. > >> > frequency) which is required for the execution of a specific RT/DL > >> > workload. This will contribute to make the RT class more "friendly" for > >> > power/energy sensible applications. > >> > > >> > This patch extends the usage of capacity_{min,max} to the RT/DL classes. > >> > Whenever a task in these classes is RUNNABLE, the capacity required is > >> > defined by the constraints of the control group that task belongs to. > >> > > >> > >> We briefly discussed this at Linaro Connect that this works well for > >> sporadic RT tasks that run briefly and then sleep for long periods of > >> time - so certainly this patch is good, but its only a partial > >> solution to the problem of frequent and short-sleepers and something > >> is required to keep the boost active for short non-RUNNABLE as well. > >> The behavior with many periodic RT tasks is that they will sleep for > >> short intervals and run for short intervals periodically. In this case > >> removing the clamp (or the boost as in schedtune v2) on a dequeue will > >> essentially mean during a narrow window cpufreq can drop the frequency > >> and only to make it go back up again. > >> > >> Currently for schedtune v2, I am working on prototyping something like > >> the following for Android: > >> - if RT task is enqueue, introduce the boost. > >> - When task is dequeued, start a timer for a "minimum deboost delay > >> time" before taking out the boost. > >> - If task is enqueued again before the timer fires, then cancel the timer. > >> > >> I don't think any "fix" to this particular issue should be to the > >> schedutil governor and should be sorted before going to cpufreq itself > >> (that is before making the request). What do you think about this? > > > > My short observations are: > > > > 1) for certain RT tasks, which have a quite "predictable" activation > > pattern, we should definitively try to use DEADLINE... which will > > factor out all "boosting potential races" since the bandwidth > > requirements are well defined at task description time. > > I don't immediately see how deadline can fix this, when a task is > dequeued after end of its current runtime, its bandwidth will be > subtracted from the active running bandwidth. This is what drives the > DL part of the capacity request. In this case, we run into the same > issue as with the boost-removal on dequeue. Isn't it? > Unfortunately, I still have to post the set of patches (based on Luca's reclaiming set) that introduces driving of clock frequency from DEADLINE, so I guess everything we can discuss about how DEADLINE might help here might be difficult to understand. :( I should definitely fix that. However, trying to quickly summarize how that would work (for who is already somewhat familiar with reclaiming bits): - a task utilization contribution is accounted for (at rq level) as soon as it wakes up for the first time in a new period - its contribution is then removed after the 0lag time (or when the task gets throttled) - frequency transitions are triggered accordingly So, I don't see why triggering a go down request after the 0lag time expired and quickly reacting to tasks waking up would have create problems in your case? Thanks, - Juri