Linux-PM Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / Atom feed
From: Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
	Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>,
	Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com>,
	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
	Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>, Todd Kjos <tkjos@google.com>,
	Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>,
	Steve Muckle <smuckle@google.com>,
	Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>,
	Alessio Balsini <balsini@android.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 12/16] sched/core: uclamp: Extend CPU's cgroup controller
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2019 18:29:06 +0100
Message-ID: <20190624172906.3d3w6352ji4izjgo@e110439-lin> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190622150332.GM657710@devbig004.ftw2.facebook.com>

On 22-Jun 08:03, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,

Hi,

> Generally looks good to me.  Some nitpicks.
> 
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 09:42:13AM +0100, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> > @@ -951,6 +951,12 @@ controller implements weight and absolute bandwidth limit models for
> >  normal scheduling policy and absolute bandwidth allocation model for
> >  realtime scheduling policy.
> > 
> > +Cycles distribution is based, by default, on a temporal base and it
> > +does not account for the frequency at which tasks are executed.
> > +The (optional) utilization clamping support allows to enforce a minimum
> > +bandwidth, which should always be provided by a CPU, and a maximum bandwidth,
> > +which should never be exceeded by a CPU.
> 
> I kinda wonder whether the term bandwidth is a bit confusing because
> it's also used for cpu.max/min.  Would just calling it frequency be
> clearer?

Maybe I should find a better way to express the concept above.

I agree that bandwidth is already used by cpu.{max,min}, what I want
to call out is that clamps allows to enrich that concept.

By hinting the scheduler on min/max required utilization we can better
defined the amount of actual CPU cycles required/allowed.
That's a bit more precise bandwidth control compared to just rely on
temporal runnable/period limits.

> > +static ssize_t cpu_uclamp_min_write(struct kernfs_open_file *of,
> > +				    char *buf, size_t nbytes,
> > +				    loff_t off)
> > +{
> > +	struct task_group *tg;
> > +	u64 min_value;
> > +	int ret;
> > +
> > +	ret = uclamp_scale_from_percent(buf, &min_value);
> > +	if (ret)
> > +		return ret;
> > +	if (min_value > SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE)
> > +		return -ERANGE;
> > +
> > +	rcu_read_lock();
> > +
> > +	tg = css_tg(of_css(of));
> > +	if (tg == &root_task_group) {
> > +		ret = -EINVAL;
> > +		goto out;
> > +	}
> 
> I don't think you need the above check.

Don't we want to forbid attributes tuning from the root group?

> > +	if (tg->uclamp_req[UCLAMP_MIN].value == min_value)
> > +		goto out;
> > +	if (tg->uclamp_req[UCLAMP_MAX].value < min_value) {
> > +		ret = -EINVAL;
> 
> So, uclamp.max limits the maximum freq% can get and uclamp.min limits
> hte maximum freq% protection can get in the subtree.  Let's say
> uclamp.max is 50% and uclamp.min is 100%.

That's not possible, in the current implementation we always enforce
the limit (uclamp.max) to be _not smaller_ then the protection
(uclamp.min).

Indeed, in principle, it does not make sense to ask for a minimum
utilization (i.e. frequency boosting) which is higher then the
maximum allowed utilization (i.e. frequency capping).


> It means that protection is not limited but the actual freq% is
> limited upto 50%, which isn't necessarily invalid.
> For a simple example, a user might be saying
> that they want to get whatever protection they can get from its parent
> but wanna limit eventual freq at 50% and it isn't too difficult to
> imagine cases where the two knobs are configured separately especially
> configuration is being managed hierarchically / automatically.

That's not my understanding, in v10 by default when we create a
subgroup we assign it uclamp.min=0%, meaning that we don't boost
frequencies.

It seems instead that you are asking to set uclamp.min=100% by
default, so that the effective value will give us whatever the father
allow. Is that correct?

> tl;dr is that we don't need the above restriction and shouldn't
> generally be restricting configurations when they don't need to.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> -- 
> tejun

Cheers,
Patrick

-- 
#include <best/regards.h>

Patrick Bellasi

  reply index

Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-06-21  8:42 [PATCH v10 00/16] Add utilization clamping support Patrick Bellasi
2019-06-21  8:42 ` [PATCH v10 01/16] sched/core: uclamp: Add CPU's clamp buckets refcounting Patrick Bellasi
2019-06-21  8:42 ` [PATCH v10 02/16] sched/core: uclamp: Add bucket local max tracking Patrick Bellasi
2019-06-21  8:42 ` [PATCH v10 03/16] sched/core: uclamp: Enforce last task's UCLAMP_MAX Patrick Bellasi
2019-06-21  8:42 ` [PATCH v10 04/16] sched/core: uclamp: Add system default clamps Patrick Bellasi
2019-06-21  8:42 ` [PATCH v10 05/16] sched/core: Allow sched_setattr() to use the current policy Patrick Bellasi
2019-06-21  8:42 ` [PATCH v10 06/16] sched/core: uclamp: Extend sched_setattr() to support utilization clamping Patrick Bellasi
2019-06-21  8:42 ` [PATCH v10 07/16] sched/core: uclamp: Reset uclamp values on RESET_ON_FORK Patrick Bellasi
2019-06-21  8:42 ` [PATCH v10 08/16] sched/core: uclamp: Set default clamps for RT tasks Patrick Bellasi
2019-06-21  8:42 ` [PATCH v10 09/16] sched/cpufreq: uclamp: Add clamps for FAIR and " Patrick Bellasi
2019-06-21  8:42 ` [PATCH v10 10/16] sched/core: uclamp: Add uclamp_util_with() Patrick Bellasi
2019-06-21  8:42 ` [PATCH v10 11/16] sched/fair: uclamp: Add uclamp support to energy_compute() Patrick Bellasi
2019-06-21 14:01   ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-06-21 14:47     ` Patrick Bellasi
2019-06-21  8:42 ` [PATCH v10 12/16] sched/core: uclamp: Extend CPU's cgroup controller Patrick Bellasi
2019-06-22 15:03   ` Tejun Heo
2019-06-24 17:29     ` Patrick Bellasi [this message]
2019-06-24 17:52       ` Tejun Heo
2019-06-25  9:31         ` Patrick Bellasi
2019-06-21  8:42 ` [PATCH v10 13/16] sched/core: uclamp: Propagate parent clamps Patrick Bellasi
2019-06-22 15:07   ` Tejun Heo
2019-06-24 17:34     ` Patrick Bellasi
2019-06-24 17:46       ` Tejun Heo
2019-06-21  8:42 ` [PATCH v10 14/16] sched/core: uclamp: Propagate system defaults to root group Patrick Bellasi
2019-06-21  8:42 ` [PATCH v10 15/16] sched/core: uclamp: Use TG's clamps to restrict TASK's clamps Patrick Bellasi
2019-06-21  8:42 ` [PATCH v10 16/16] sched/core: uclamp: Update CPU's refcount on TG's clamp changes Patrick Bellasi
2019-06-21 14:55 ` [PATCH v10 00/16] Add utilization clamping support Patrick Bellasi

Reply instructions:

You may reply publically 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=20190624172906.3d3w6352ji4izjgo@e110439-lin \
    --to=patrick.bellasi@arm.com \
    --cc=balsini@android.com \
    --cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
    --cc=joelaf@google.com \
    --cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=morten.rasmussen@arm.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=pjt@google.com \
    --cc=quentin.perret@arm.com \
    --cc=rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com \
    --cc=smuckle@google.com \
    --cc=surenb@google.com \
    --cc=tj@kernel.org \
    --cc=tkjos@google.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: link

Linux-PM Archive on lore.kernel.org

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pm/0 linux-pm/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 linux-pm linux-pm/ https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pm \
		linux-pm@vger.kernel.org linux-pm@archiver.kernel.org
	public-inbox-index linux-pm


Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.linux-pm


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/ public-inbox