Re: [PATCH] base: arch_topology: Use policy->max to calculate freq_factor

From: Thara Gopinath <thara.gopinath@linaro.org>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
	Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>
Cc: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] base: arch_topology: Use policy->max to calculate freq_factor
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2021 12:01:04 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <af59de78-49b0-d2e6-4bf0-7c897c2fccb1@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJZ5v0iRDtr5yae5UndwU2SmVL4cak=BN0irVGbgNzQiS8K3mA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

On 11/17/21 7:49 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 11:46 AM Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Rafael,
>>
>> On 11/16/21 7:05 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 9:10 PM Thara Gopinath
>>> <thara.gopinath@linaro.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> cpuinfo.max_freq can reflect boost frequency if enabled during boot.  Since
>>>> we don't consider boost frequencies while calculating cpu capacities, use
>>>> policy->max to populate the freq_factor during boot up.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure about this.  schedutil uses cpuinfo.max_freq as the max frequency.
>>
>> Agree it's tricky how we treat the boost frequencies and also combine
>> them with thermal pressure.
>> We probably would have consider these design bits:
>> 1. Should thermal pressure include boost frequency?
> 
> Well, I guess so.
> 
> Running at a boost frequency certainly increases thermal pressure.
> 
>> 2. Should max capacity 1024 be a boost frequency so scheduler
>>      would see it explicitly?
> 
> That's what it is now if cpuinfo.max_freq is a boost frequency.
> 
>> - if no, then schedutil could still request boost freq thanks to
>>     map_util_perf() where we add 25% to the util and then
>>     map_util_freq() would return a boost freq when util was > 1024
>>
>>
>> I can see in schedutil only one place when cpuinfo.max_freq is used:
>> get_next_freq(). If the value stored in there is a boost,
>> then don't we get a higher freq value for the same util?
> 
> Yes. we do, which basically is my point.
> 
> The schedutil's response is proportional to cpuinfo.max_freq and that
> needs to be taken into account for the results to be consistent.

So IIUC, cpuinfo.max_freq is always supposed to be the highest supported 
frequency of a cpu, irrespective of whether boost is enabled or not. 
Where as policy->max is the currently available maximum cpu frequency 
which can be equal to cpuinfo.max_freq or lower (depending on whether 
boost is enabled, whether there is a constraint on policy->max placed by 
thermal etc). So in this case isn't it better for schedutil to consider 
policy->max instead of cpuinfo.max ? Like you mentioned above same 
utilization will relate to different frequencies depending on the 
maximum frequency.

> 

-- 
Warm Regards
Thara (She/Her/Hers)