Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Conditional frequency invariant accounting

From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
To: Giovanni Gherdovich <ggherdovich@suse.cz>
Cc: Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>, Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
	"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@kernel.org>,
	Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
	Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>,
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>, Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
	Quentin Perret <qperret@qperret.net>,
	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
	Doug Smythies <dsmythies@telus.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Conditional frequency invariant accounting
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2019 10:29:51 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0jK1kMjQ3gu8KhQmp2Paq9Rb74NPjMQ1HsVRCD3Fct5TQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1570177786.30086.1.camel@suse.cz>

On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 10:24 AM Giovanni Gherdovich <ggherdovich@suse.cz> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2019-10-03 at 20:31 -0700, Srinivas Pandruvada wrote:
> > On Thu, 2019-10-03 at 20:05 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 2:29:26 PM CEST Giovanni Gherdovich
> > > wrote:
> > > > From: Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>
> > > >
> > > > intel_pstate has two operating modes: active and passive. In "active"
> > > > mode, the in-built scaling governor is used and in "passive" mode, the
> > > > driver can be used with any governor like "schedutil". In "active" mode
> > > > the utilization values from schedutil is not used and there is a
> > > > requirement from high performance computing use cases, not to readas
> > > > well any APERF/MPERF MSRs.
> > >
> > > Well, this isn't quite convincing.
> > >
> > > In particular, I don't see why the "don't read APERF/MPERF MSRs" argument
> > > applies *only* to intel_pstate in the "active" mode.  What about
> > > intel_pstate in the "passive" mode combined with the "performance"
> > > governor?  Or any other governor different from "schedutil" for that
> > > matter?
> > >
> > > And what about acpi_cpufreq combined with any governor different from
> > > "schedutil"?
> > >
> > > Scale invariance is not really needed in all of those cases right now
> > > AFAICS, or is it?
> >
> > Correct. This is just part of the patch to disable in active mode
> > (particularly in HWP and performance mode).
> >
> > But this patch is 2 years old. The folks who wanted this, disable
> > intel-pstate and use userspace governor with acpi-cpufreq. So may be
> > better to address those cases too.
>
> I disagree with "scale invariance is needed only by the schedutil governor";
> the two other users are the CPU's estimated utilization in the wakeup path,
> via cpu_util_without(), as well as the load-balance path, via cpu_util() which
> is used by update_sg_lb_stats().

OK, so there are reasons to run the scale invariance code which are
not related to the cpufreq governor in use.

I wonder then why those reasons are not relevant for intel_pstate in
the "active" mode.

> Also remember that scale invariance is applied to both PELT signals util_avg
> and load_avg; schedutil uses the former but not the latter.
>
> I understand Srinivas patch to disable MSR accesses during the tick as a
> band-aid solution to address a specific use case he cares about, but I don't
> think that extending this approach to any non-schedutil governor is a good
> idea -- you'd be killing load balancing in the process.

But that is also the case for intel_pstate in the "active" mode, isn't it?