From: Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
To: douglas.raillard@arm.com
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, quentin.perret@arm.com,
dietmar.eggemann@arm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 6/7] sched/cpufreq: Improve sugov_cpu_is_busy accuracy
Date: Thu, 16 May 2019 13:55:52 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190516125552.hol3rasllhveekxq@e110439-lin> (raw)
Message-ID: <20190516125552.K9R9UqhITWjeDAQRfTMh6Ls9hyXts1kWBjf7B3Or1q4@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190508174301.4828-7-douglas.raillard@arm.com>
On 08-May 18:43, douglas.raillard@arm.com wrote:
> From: Douglas RAILLARD <douglas.raillard@arm.com>
>
> Avoid assuming a CPU is busy when it has begun being idle before
> get_next_freq() is called. This is achieved by making sure the CPU will
> not be detected as busy by other CPUs whenever its utilization is
> decreasing.
If I understand it correctly, what you are after here is a "metric"
which tells you (in a shared performance domain) if a CPU has been
busy for a certain amount of time.
You do that by reworking the way idle_calls are accounted for the
sugov_update_single() case.
That approach could work but it looks a bit convoluted in the way it's
coded and it's also difficult to exclude there could be corner cases
with wired behaviors.
Isn't that why you "fix" the saved_idle_calls counter after all?
What about a different approach where we:
1. we annotate the timestamp a CPU wakes up from IDLE (last_wakeup_time)
2. we use that annotated last_wake_time and the rq->nr_running to
define the "cpu is busy" heuristic.
Looking at a sibling CPU, I think we can end up with two main cases:
1. CPU's nr_running is == 0
then we don't consider busy that CPU
2. CPU's nr_running is > 0
then the CPU is busy iff
(current_time - last_wakeup_tim) >= busy_threshold
Notice that, when a CPU is active, its rq clock is periodically
updated, at least once per tick. Thus, provided a tick time is not too
long to declare busy a CPU, then the above logic should work.
Perhaps the busy_threshold can also be defined considering the PELT
dynamics and starting from an expected utilization increase converted
in time.
Could something like to above work or am I missing something?
> Signed-off-by: Douglas RAILLARD <douglas.raillard@arm.com>
> ---
> kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 37 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> index a12b7e5bc028..ce4b90cafbb5 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> @@ -62,6 +62,7 @@ struct sugov_cpu {
> /* The field below is for single-CPU policies only: */
> #ifdef CONFIG_NO_HZ_COMMON
> unsigned long saved_idle_calls;
> + unsigned long previous_util;
> #endif
> };
>
> @@ -181,14 +182,35 @@ static bool sugov_cpu_is_busy(struct sugov_cpu *sg_cpu)
> return ret;
> }
>
> -static void sugov_cpu_is_busy_update(struct sugov_cpu *sg_cpu)
> +static void sugov_cpu_is_busy_update(struct sugov_cpu *sg_cpu,
> + unsigned long util)
> {
> unsigned long idle_calls = tick_nohz_get_idle_calls_cpu(sg_cpu->cpu);
> sg_cpu->saved_idle_calls = idle_calls;
> +
> + /*
> + * Make sure that this CPU will not be immediately considered as busy in
> + * cases where the CPU has already entered an idle state. In that case,
> + * the number of idle_calls will not vary anymore until it exits idle,
> + * which would lead sugov_cpu_is_busy() to say that this CPU is busy,
> + * because it has not (re)entered idle since the last time we looked at
> + * it.
> + * Assuming cpu0 and cpu1 are in the same policy, that will make sure
> + * this sequence of events leads to right cpu1 business status from
> + * get_next_freq(cpu=1)
> + * cpu0: [enter idle] -> [get_next_freq] -> [doing nothing] -> [wakeup]
> + * cpu1: ... -> [get_next_freq] -> ...
> + */
> + if (util <= sg_cpu->previous_util)
> + sg_cpu->saved_idle_calls--;
> +
> + sg_cpu->previous_util = util;
> }
> #else
> static inline bool sugov_cpu_is_busy(struct sugov_cpu *sg_cpu) { return false; }
> -static void sugov_cpu_is_busy_update(struct sugov_cpu *sg_cpu) {}
> +static void sugov_cpu_is_busy_update(struct sugov_cpu *sg_cpu
> + unsigned long util)
> +{}
> #endif /* CONFIG_NO_HZ_COMMON */
>
> /**
> @@ -507,10 +529,9 @@ static void sugov_update_single(struct update_util_data *hook, u64 time,
> if (!sugov_should_update_freq(sg_policy, time))
> return;
>
> - busy = sugov_cpu_is_busy(sg_cpu);
> - sugov_cpu_is_busy_update(sg_cpu);
> -
> util = sugov_get_util(sg_cpu);
> + busy = sugov_cpu_is_busy(sg_cpu);
> + sugov_cpu_is_busy_update(sg_cpu, util);
> max = sg_cpu->max;
> util = sugov_iowait_apply(sg_cpu, time, util, max);
> next_f = get_next_freq(sg_policy, util, max);
> @@ -545,12 +566,15 @@ static unsigned int sugov_next_freq_shared(struct sugov_cpu *sg_cpu, u64 time)
> struct cpufreq_policy *policy = sg_policy->policy;
> unsigned long util = 0, max = 1;
> unsigned int j;
> + unsigned long sg_cpu_util = 0;
>
> for_each_cpu(j, policy->cpus) {
> struct sugov_cpu *j_sg_cpu = &per_cpu(sugov_cpu, j);
> unsigned long j_util, j_max;
>
> j_util = sugov_get_util(j_sg_cpu);
> + if (j_sg_cpu == sg_cpu)
> + sg_cpu_util = j_util;
> j_max = j_sg_cpu->max;
> j_util = sugov_iowait_apply(j_sg_cpu, time, j_util, j_max);
>
> @@ -560,6 +584,14 @@ static unsigned int sugov_next_freq_shared(struct sugov_cpu *sg_cpu, u64 time)
> }
> }
>
> + /*
> + * Only update the business status if we are looking at the CPU for
> + * which a utilization change triggered a call to get_next_freq(). This
> + * way, we don't affect the "busy" status of CPUs that don't have any
> + * change in utilization.
> + */
> + sugov_cpu_is_busy_update(sg_cpu, sg_cpu_util);
> +
> return get_next_freq(sg_policy, util, max);
> }
>
> --
> 2.21.0
>
--
#include <best/regards.h>
Patrick Bellasi
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-05-16 12:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-05-08 17:42 [RFC PATCH 0/7] sched/cpufreq: Make schedutil energy aware douglas.raillard
2019-05-08 17:42 ` douglas.raillard
2019-05-08 17:42 ` [RFC PATCH 1/7] PM: Introduce em_pd_get_higher_freq() douglas.raillard
2019-05-08 17:42 ` douglas.raillard
2019-05-16 12:42 ` Patrick Bellasi
2019-05-16 12:42 ` Patrick Bellasi
2019-05-16 13:01 ` Quentin Perret
2019-05-16 13:01 ` Quentin Perret
2019-05-16 13:22 ` Patrick Bellasi
2019-05-16 13:22 ` Patrick Bellasi
2019-06-19 16:08 ` Douglas Raillard
2019-06-20 13:04 ` Patrick Bellasi
2019-06-21 10:17 ` Quentin Perret
2019-06-21 10:22 ` Quentin Perret
2019-05-16 13:06 ` Douglas Raillard
2019-05-16 13:06 ` Douglas Raillard
2019-05-08 17:42 ` [RFC PATCH 2/7] sched/cpufreq: Attach perf domain to sugov policy douglas.raillard
2019-05-08 17:42 ` douglas.raillard
2019-05-08 17:42 ` [RFC PATCH 3/7] sched/cpufreq: Hook em_pd_get_higher_power() into get_next_freq() douglas.raillard
2019-05-08 17:42 ` douglas.raillard
2019-05-08 17:42 ` [RFC PATCH 4/7] sched/cpufreq: Move up sugov_cpu_is_busy() douglas.raillard
2019-05-08 17:42 ` douglas.raillard
2019-05-08 17:42 ` [RFC PATCH 5/7] sched/cpufreq: sugov_cpu_is_busy for shared policy douglas.raillard
2019-05-08 17:42 ` douglas.raillard
2019-05-08 17:43 ` [RFC PATCH 6/7] sched/cpufreq: Improve sugov_cpu_is_busy accuracy douglas.raillard
2019-05-08 17:43 ` douglas.raillard
2019-05-16 12:55 ` Patrick Bellasi [this message]
2019-05-16 12:55 ` Patrick Bellasi
2019-06-19 16:19 ` Douglas Raillard
2019-06-20 11:05 ` Patrick Bellasi
2019-05-08 17:43 ` [RFC PATCH 7/7] sched/cpufreq: Boost schedutil frequency ramp up douglas.raillard
2019-05-08 17:43 ` douglas.raillard
2019-05-13 7:12 ` [RFC PATCH 0/7] sched/cpufreq: Make schedutil energy aware Viresh Kumar
2019-05-13 7:12 ` Viresh Kumar
2019-05-13 13:52 ` Douglas Raillard
2019-05-13 13:52 ` Douglas Raillard
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=20190516125552.hol3rasllhveekxq@e110439-lin \
--to=patrick.bellasi@arm.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=douglas.raillard@arm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=quentin.perret@arm.com \
/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).