From: Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@arm.com>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Cc: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Rafael Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 1/2] topology: Allow multiple entities to provide sched_freq_tick() callback
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2021 11:30:11 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210217113011.GA22176@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210217042558.o4anjdkayzgqny55@vireshk-i7>
Hi,
Replying this first as it's going to be relevant below:
> Just out of curiosity, what exactly did you test and what was the setup ? :)
I tested it on:
- Juno R0 (CPUs [0, 3-5] are littles, CPUs [1-2] are bigs)
+ PMUs faking AMUs
+ userspace/schedutil +
+ cpufreq-FIE/!cpufreq-FIE
+ DT
This testing did not yet cover patch 2/2.
My checklist shows:
- system invariance status correct - passed
- scale factor correct (userspace cpufreq governor) - passed
- arch_set_freq_scale bypassed - passed
- partial "AMUs" support - failed (see below)
- EAS enabling - passed
I don't have an automated process for this as many test cases involve
kernel source changes. In time I will automate all of these and
possibly cover all scenarios with FVP (fast models) testing, but for
now human error is possible :).
On Wednesday 17 Feb 2021 at 09:55:58 (+0530), Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 17-02-21, 00:24, Ionela Voinescu wrote:
> > I think it could be merged in patch 1/2 as it's part of enabling the use
> > of multiple sources of information for FIE. Up to you!
>
> Sure.
>
> > > static void amu_fie_setup(const struct cpumask *cpus)
> > > {
> > > - bool invariant;
> > > int cpu;
> > >
> > > /* We are already set since the last insmod of cpufreq driver */
> > > @@ -257,25 +256,10 @@ static void amu_fie_setup(const struct cpumask *cpus)
> > >
> > > cpumask_or(amu_fie_cpus, amu_fie_cpus, cpus);
> > >
> > > - invariant = topology_scale_freq_invariant();
> > > -
> > > - /* We aren't fully invariant yet */
> > > - if (!invariant && !cpumask_equal(amu_fie_cpus, cpu_present_mask))
> > > - return;
> > > -
> >
> > You still need these checks, otherwise you could end up with only part
> > of the CPUs setting a scale factor, when only part of the CPUs support
> > AMUs and there is no cpufreq support for FIE.
>
> Both supports_scale_freq_counters() and topology_scale_freq_invariant() take
> care of this now and they will keep reporting the system as invariant until the
> time all the CPUs have counters (in absence of cpufreq).
>
Correct!
> The topology_set_scale_freq_source() API is supposed to be called multiple
> times, probably once for each policy and so I don't see a need of these checks
> anymore.
>
The problem is not topology_scale_freq_invariant() but whether a scale
factor is set for some CPUs.
Scenario (test system above):
- "AMUs" are only supported for [1-2],
- cpufreq_supports_freq_invariance() -> false
What should happen:
- topology_scale_freq_invariant() -> false (passed)
- all CPUs should have their freq_scale unmodified (1024) - (failed)
because only 2 out of 6 CPUs have a method of setting a scale factor
What does happen:
- arch_set_freq_tick() -> topology_set_freq_tick() will set a scale
factor for [1-2] based on AMUs. This should not happen. We will end
up with invariant signals for bigs and signals that are not freq
invariant for littles.
Ionela.
> > Small(ish) optimisation at the beginning of this function:
> >
> > if (cpumask_empty(&scale_freq_counters_mask))
> > scale_freq_invariant = topology_scale_freq_invariant();
> >
> > This will save you a call to rebuild_sched_domains_energy(), which is
> > quite expensive, when cpufreq supports FIE and we also have counters.
>
> Good Point.
>
> > After comments addressed,
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@arm.com>
>
> Thanks.
>
> > Tested-by: Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@arm.com>
>
>
> --
> viresh
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-02-17 11:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-01-28 10:48 [PATCH V3 0/2] cpufreq: cppc: Add support for frequency invariance Viresh Kumar
2021-01-28 10:48 ` [PATCH V3 1/2] topology: Allow multiple entities to provide sched_freq_tick() callback Viresh Kumar
2021-02-03 11:45 ` Ionela Voinescu
2021-02-05 9:14 ` Viresh Kumar
2021-02-17 0:24 ` Ionela Voinescu
2021-02-17 4:25 ` Viresh Kumar
2021-02-17 11:30 ` Ionela Voinescu [this message]
2021-02-17 11:40 ` Viresh Kumar
2021-02-17 11:57 ` Ionela Voinescu
2021-02-18 7:23 ` Viresh Kumar
2021-02-18 9:33 ` Viresh Kumar
2021-02-18 16:36 ` Ionela Voinescu
2021-02-19 4:58 ` Viresh Kumar
2021-02-19 9:44 ` Ionela Voinescu
2021-02-19 9:48 ` Viresh Kumar
2021-01-28 10:48 ` [PATCH V3 2/2] cpufreq: cppc: Add support for frequency invariance Viresh Kumar
2021-02-18 16:35 ` Ionela Voinescu
2021-02-22 11:00 ` Ionela Voinescu
2021-02-22 11:04 ` Viresh Kumar
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=20210217113011.GA22176@arm.com \
--to=ionela.voinescu@arm.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=sudeep.holla@arm.com \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
--cc=will@kernel.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: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).