From: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com> To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org> Cc: Saravana Kannan <skannan@codeaurora.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>, Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>, Chris Redpath <chris.redpath@arm.com>, Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>, Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>, Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>, Thara Gopinath <thara.gopinath@linaro.org>, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>, Todd Kjos <tkjos@google.com>, Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>, Steve Muckle <smuckle@google.com>, adharmap@quicinc.com, skannan@quicinc.com, Pavan Kondeti <pkondeti@codeaurora.org>, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>, Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>, Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>, currojerez@riseup.net, Javi Merino <javi.merino@kernel.org>, linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 10/14] sched/cpufreq: Refactor the utilization aggregation method Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2018 10:23:27 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20180801092325.g2upcivcvdo62hub@queper01-ThinkPad-T460s> (raw) In-Reply-To: <CAJZ5v0joYFXkXxoV8odPtrCNW=jAw3RVv3rTzMoabeYWGDnREw@mail.gmail.com> On Wednesday 01 Aug 2018 at 10:35:32 (+0200), Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 10:23 AM, Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com> wrote: > > On Wednesday 01 Aug 2018 at 09:32:49 (+0200), Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >> On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 9:31 PM, <skannan@codeaurora.org> wrote: > >> >> On Monday 30 Jul 2018 at 12:35:27 (-0700), skannan@codeaurora.org wrote: > >> >>> If it's going to be a different aggregation from what's done for > >> >>> frequency > >> >>> guidance, I don't see the point of having this inside schedutil. Why not > >> >>> keep it inside the scheduler files? > >> >> > >> >> This code basically results from a discussion we had with Peter on v4. > >> >> Keeping everything centralized can make sense from a maintenance > >> >> perspective, I think. That makes it easy to see the impact of any change > >> >> to utilization signals for both EAS and schedutil. > >> > > >> > In that case, I'd argue it makes more sense to keep the code centralized in > >> > the scheduler. The scheduler can let schedutil know about the utilization > >> > after it aggregates them. There's no need for a cpufreq governor to know > >> > that there are scheduling classes or how many there are. And the scheduler > >> > can then choose to aggregate one way for task packing and another way for > >> > frequency guidance. > >> > >> Also the aggregate utilization may be used by cpuidle governors in > >> principle to decide how deep they can go with idle state selection. > > > > The only issue I see with this right now is that some of the things done > > in this function are policy decisions which really belong to the governor, > > I think. > > Well, the scheduler makes policy decisions too, in quite a few places. :-) That is true ... ;-) But not so much about frequency selection yet I guess > The really important consideration here is whether or not there may be > multiple governors making different policy decisions in that respect. > If not, then where exactly the single policy decision is made doesn't > particularly matter IMO. I think some users of the aggregated utilization signal do want to make slightly different decisions (I'm thinking about the RT-go-to-max thing again which makes perfect sense in sugov, but could possibly hurt EAS). So the "hard" part of this work is to figure out what really is a governor-specific policy decision, and what is common between all users. I put "hard" between quotes because I only see the case of RT as truly sugov-specific for now. If we also want a special case for DL, Peter's enum should work OK, and enable to add more special cases for new users (cpuidle ?) if needed. But maybe that is something for later ? Thanks, Quentin
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com> To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org> Cc: Saravana Kannan <skannan@codeaurora.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>, Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>, Chris Redpath <chris.redpath@arm.com>, Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>, Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>, Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>, Thara Gopinath <thara.gopinath@linaro.org>, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>, Todd Kjos <tkjos@google.com>, Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>, Steve Muckle <smuckle@google.com>, adhar Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 10/14] sched/cpufreq: Refactor the utilization aggregation method Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2018 10:23:27 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20180801092325.g2upcivcvdo62hub@queper01-ThinkPad-T460s> (raw) In-Reply-To: <CAJZ5v0joYFXkXxoV8odPtrCNW=jAw3RVv3rTzMoabeYWGDnREw@mail.gmail.com> On Wednesday 01 Aug 2018 at 10:35:32 (+0200), Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 10:23 AM, Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com> wrote: > > On Wednesday 01 Aug 2018 at 09:32:49 (+0200), Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >> On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 9:31 PM, <skannan@codeaurora.org> wrote: > >> >> On Monday 30 Jul 2018 at 12:35:27 (-0700), skannan@codeaurora.org wrote: > >> >>> If it's going to be a different aggregation from what's done for > >> >>> frequency > >> >>> guidance, I don't see the point of having this inside schedutil. Why not > >> >>> keep it inside the scheduler files? > >> >> > >> >> This code basically results from a discussion we had with Peter on v4. > >> >> Keeping everything centralized can make sense from a maintenance > >> >> perspective, I think. That makes it easy to see the impact of any change > >> >> to utilization signals for both EAS and schedutil. > >> > > >> > In that case, I'd argue it makes more sense to keep the code centralized in > >> > the scheduler. The scheduler can let schedutil know about the utilization > >> > after it aggregates them. There's no need for a cpufreq governor to know > >> > that there are scheduling classes or how many there are. And the scheduler > >> > can then choose to aggregate one way for task packing and another way for > >> > frequency guidance. > >> > >> Also the aggregate utilization may be used by cpuidle governors in > >> principle to decide how deep they can go with idle state selection. > > > > The only issue I see with this right now is that some of the things done > > in this function are policy decisions which really belong to the governor, > > I think. > > Well, the scheduler makes policy decisions too, in quite a few places. :-) That is true ... ;-) But not so much about frequency selection yet I guess > The really important consideration here is whether or not there may be > multiple governors making different policy decisions in that respect. > If not, then where exactly the single policy decision is made doesn't > particularly matter IMO. I think some users of the aggregated utilization signal do want to make slightly different decisions (I'm thinking about the RT-go-to-max thing again which makes perfect sense in sugov, but could possibly hurt EAS). So the "hard" part of this work is to figure out what really is a governor-specific policy decision, and what is common between all users. I put "hard" between quotes because I only see the case of RT as truly sugov-specific for now. If we also want a special case for DL, Peter's enum should work OK, and enable to add more special cases for new users (cpuidle ?) if needed. But maybe that is something for later ? Thanks, Quentin
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-08-01 9:23 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 108+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2018-07-24 12:25 [PATCH v5 00/14] Energy Aware Scheduling Quentin Perret 2018-07-24 12:25 ` [PATCH v5 01/14] sched: Relocate arch_scale_cpu_capacity Quentin Perret 2018-07-24 12:25 ` [PATCH v5 02/14] sched/cpufreq: Factor out utilization to frequency mapping Quentin Perret 2018-07-24 12:25 ` [PATCH v5 03/14] PM: Introduce an Energy Model management framework Quentin Perret 2018-08-09 21:52 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2018-08-10 8:15 ` Quentin Perret 2018-08-10 8:41 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2018-08-10 8:41 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2018-08-10 9:12 ` Quentin Perret 2018-08-10 11:13 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2018-08-10 12:30 ` Quentin Perret 2018-08-12 9:49 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2018-08-12 9:49 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2018-07-24 12:25 ` [PATCH v5 04/14] PM / EM: Expose the Energy Model in sysfs Quentin Perret 2018-07-24 12:25 ` [PATCH v5 05/14] sched/topology: Reference the Energy Model of CPUs when available Quentin Perret 2018-07-24 12:25 ` [PATCH v5 06/14] sched/topology: Lowest energy aware balancing sched_domain level pointer Quentin Perret 2018-07-26 16:00 ` Valentin Schneider 2018-07-26 17:01 ` Quentin Perret 2018-07-24 12:25 ` [PATCH v5 07/14] sched/topology: Introduce sched_energy_present static key Quentin Perret 2018-07-24 12:25 ` [PATCH v5 08/14] sched/fair: Clean-up update_sg_lb_stats parameters Quentin Perret 2018-07-24 12:25 ` [PATCH v5 09/14] sched: Add over-utilization/tipping point indicator Quentin Perret 2018-08-02 12:26 ` Peter Zijlstra 2018-08-02 13:03 ` Quentin Perret 2018-08-02 13:08 ` Peter Zijlstra 2018-08-02 13:18 ` Quentin Perret 2018-08-02 13:48 ` Vincent Guittot 2018-08-02 13:48 ` Vincent Guittot 2018-08-02 14:14 ` Quentin Perret 2018-08-02 14:14 ` Quentin Perret 2018-08-02 15:14 ` Vincent Guittot 2018-08-02 15:14 ` Vincent Guittot 2018-08-02 15:30 ` Quentin Perret 2018-08-02 15:30 ` Quentin Perret 2018-08-02 15:55 ` Vincent Guittot 2018-08-02 15:55 ` Vincent Guittot 2018-08-02 16:00 ` Quentin Perret 2018-08-02 16:00 ` Quentin Perret 2018-08-02 16:07 ` Vincent Guittot 2018-08-02 16:07 ` Vincent Guittot 2018-08-02 16:10 ` Quentin Perret 2018-08-02 16:10 ` Quentin Perret 2018-08-02 16:38 ` Vincent Guittot 2018-08-02 16:38 ` Vincent Guittot 2018-08-02 16:59 ` Quentin Perret 2018-08-02 16:59 ` Quentin Perret 2018-08-03 7:48 ` Vincent Guittot 2018-08-03 7:48 ` Vincent Guittot 2018-08-03 8:18 ` Quentin Perret 2018-08-03 8:18 ` Quentin Perret 2018-08-03 13:49 ` Vincent Guittot 2018-08-03 13:49 ` Vincent Guittot 2018-08-03 14:21 ` Vincent Guittot 2018-08-03 14:21 ` Vincent Guittot 2018-08-03 15:55 ` Quentin Perret 2018-08-03 15:55 ` Quentin Perret 2018-08-06 8:40 ` Vincent Guittot 2018-08-06 8:40 ` Vincent Guittot 2018-08-06 9:43 ` Quentin Perret 2018-08-06 9:43 ` Quentin Perret 2018-08-06 10:45 ` Vincent Guittot 2018-08-06 10:45 ` Vincent Guittot 2018-08-06 11:02 ` Quentin Perret 2018-08-06 11:02 ` Quentin Perret 2018-08-06 10:08 ` Dietmar Eggemann 2018-08-06 10:08 ` Dietmar Eggemann 2018-08-06 10:33 ` Vincent Guittot 2018-08-06 10:33 ` Vincent Guittot 2018-08-06 12:29 ` Dietmar Eggemann 2018-08-06 12:29 ` Dietmar Eggemann 2018-08-06 12:37 ` Vincent Guittot 2018-08-06 12:37 ` Vincent Guittot 2018-08-06 13:20 ` Dietmar Eggemann 2018-08-06 13:20 ` Dietmar Eggemann 2018-08-09 9:30 ` Vincent Guittot 2018-08-09 9:30 ` Vincent Guittot 2018-08-09 9:38 ` Quentin Perret 2018-08-09 9:38 ` Quentin Perret 2018-07-24 12:25 ` [PATCH v5 10/14] sched/cpufreq: Refactor the utilization aggregation method Quentin Perret 2018-07-30 19:35 ` skannan 2018-07-31 7:59 ` Quentin Perret 2018-07-31 19:31 ` skannan 2018-08-01 7:32 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2018-08-01 7:32 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2018-08-01 8:23 ` Quentin Perret 2018-08-01 8:23 ` Quentin Perret 2018-08-01 8:35 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2018-08-01 8:35 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2018-08-01 9:23 ` Quentin Perret [this message] 2018-08-01 9:23 ` Quentin Perret 2018-08-01 9:40 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2018-08-01 9:40 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2018-08-02 13:04 ` Peter Zijlstra 2018-08-02 13:04 ` Peter Zijlstra 2018-08-02 15:39 ` Quentin Perret 2018-08-02 15:39 ` Quentin Perret 2018-08-03 13:04 ` Quentin Perret 2018-08-03 13:04 ` Quentin Perret 2018-08-02 12:33 ` Peter Zijlstra 2018-08-02 12:45 ` Peter Zijlstra 2018-08-02 15:21 ` Quentin Perret 2018-08-02 17:36 ` Peter Zijlstra 2018-08-03 12:42 ` Quentin Perret 2018-07-24 12:25 ` [PATCH v5 11/14] sched/fair: Introduce an energy estimation helper function Quentin Perret 2018-07-24 12:25 ` [PATCH v5 12/14] sched/fair: Select an energy-efficient CPU on task wake-up Quentin Perret 2018-08-02 13:54 ` Peter Zijlstra 2018-08-02 16:21 ` Quentin Perret 2018-07-24 12:25 ` [PATCH v5 13/14] OPTIONAL: arch_topology: Start Energy Aware Scheduling Quentin Perret 2018-07-24 12:25 ` [PATCH v5 14/14] OPTIONAL: cpufreq: dt: Register an Energy Model Quentin Perret
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=20180801092325.g2upcivcvdo62hub@queper01-ThinkPad-T460s \ --to=quentin.perret@arm.com \ --cc=adharmap@quicinc.com \ --cc=chris.redpath@arm.com \ --cc=currojerez@riseup.net \ --cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \ --cc=edubezval@gmail.com \ --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \ --cc=javi.merino@kernel.org \ --cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \ --cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=mingo@redhat.com \ --cc=morten.rasmussen@arm.com \ --cc=patrick.bellasi@arm.com \ --cc=peterz@infradead.org \ --cc=pkondeti@codeaurora.org \ --cc=rafael@kernel.org \ --cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \ --cc=skannan@codeaurora.org \ --cc=skannan@quicinc.com \ --cc=smuckle@google.com \ --cc=srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com \ --cc=thara.gopinath@linaro.org \ --cc=tkjos@google.com \ --cc=valentin.schneider@arm.com \ --cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \ --cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \ /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: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.