From: Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
To: Douglas RAILLARD <douglas.raillard@arm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, rjw@rjwysocki.net,
viresh.kumar@linaro.org, quentin.perret@arm.com,
dietmar.eggemann@arm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 4/5] sched/cpufreq: Introduce sugov_cpu_ramp_boost
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 16:08:59 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190628150859.e6dhb2hxnmtshpwb@e110439-lin> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190627171603.14767-5-douglas.raillard@arm.com>
Hi Douglas,
On 27-Jun 18:16, Douglas RAILLARD wrote:
> Use the utilization signals dynamic to detect when the utilization of a
> set of tasks starts increasing because of a change in tasks' behavior.
> This allows detecting when spending extra power for faster frequency
> ramp up response would be beneficial to the reactivity of the system.
>
> This ramp boost is computed as the difference
> util_avg-util_est_enqueued. This number somehow represents a lower bound
> of how much extra utilization this tasks is actually using, compared to
> our best current stable knowledge of it (which is util_est_enqueued).
Maybe it's worth to call out here that at rq-level we don't have an
EWMA. However, the enqueued estimated utilization is derived by
considering the _task_util_est() which factors in the moving average
of tasks and thus makes the signal more stable even in case of tasks
switching between big and small activations.
> When the set of runnable tasks changes, the boost is disabled as the
> impact of blocked utilization on util_avg will make the delta with
> util_est_enqueued not very informative.
>
> Signed-off-by: Douglas RAILLARD <douglas.raillard@arm.com>
> ---
> kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 42 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> index 7ffc6fe3b670..3eabfd815195 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> @@ -60,6 +60,9 @@ struct sugov_cpu {
> unsigned long bw_dl;
> unsigned long max;
>
> + unsigned long ramp_boost;
> + unsigned long util_est_enqueued;
> +
> /* The field below is for single-CPU policies only: */
> #ifdef CONFIG_NO_HZ_COMMON
> unsigned long saved_idle_calls;
> @@ -174,6 +177,41 @@ static void sugov_deferred_update(struct sugov_policy *sg_policy, u64 time,
> }
> }
>
> +static unsigned long sugov_cpu_ramp_boost(struct sugov_cpu *sg_cpu)
> +{
> + return READ_ONCE(sg_cpu->ramp_boost);
> +}
> +
> +static unsigned long sugov_cpu_ramp_boost_update(struct sugov_cpu *sg_cpu,
> + unsigned long util)
> +{
> + struct rq *rq = cpu_rq(sg_cpu->cpu);
Since you don't really need the rq below, maybe better:
struct sched_avg *sa = &cpu_rq(sg_cpu->cpu)->cfs.avg;
?
> + unsigned long util_est_enqueued;
> + unsigned long util_avg;
> + unsigned long boost = 0;
> +
> + util_est_enqueued = READ_ONCE(rq->cfs.avg.util_est.enqueued);
> + util_avg = READ_ONCE(rq->cfs.avg.util_avg);
> +
> + /*
> + * Boost when util_avg becomes higher than the previous stable
> + * knowledge of the enqueued tasks' set util, which is CPU's
> + * util_est_enqueued.
> + *
> + * We try to spot changes in the workload itself, so we want to
> + * avoid the noise of tasks being enqueued/dequeued. To do that,
> + * we only trigger boosting when the "amount of work' enqueued
> + * is stable.
> + */
> + if (util_est_enqueued == sg_cpu->util_est_enqueued
> + && util_avg > util_est_enqueued)
> + boost = util_avg - util_est_enqueued;
The above should be:
if (util_est_enqueued == sg_cpu->util_est_enqueue &&
util_avg > util_est_enqueued) {
boost = util_avg - util_est_enqueued;
}
but perhaps you can also go for a fast bailout with something like:
if (util_avg <= util_est_enqueued)
return 0;
if (util_est_enqueued == sg_cpu->util_est_enqueue)
boost = util_avg - util_est_enqueued;
Moreover: could it make sense to add a threshold on a minimal boost
value to return non zero?
> +
> + sg_cpu->util_est_enqueued = util_est_enqueued;
> + WRITE_ONCE(sg_cpu->ramp_boost, boost);
> + return boost;
You don't seem to use this returned value: should be void?
> +}
> +
> /**
> * get_next_freq - Compute a new frequency for a given cpufreq policy.
> * @sg_policy: schedutil policy object to compute the new frequency for.
> @@ -504,6 +542,7 @@ static void sugov_update_single(struct update_util_data *hook, u64 time,
> busy = sugov_cpu_is_busy(sg_cpu);
>
> util = sugov_get_util(sg_cpu);
> + sugov_cpu_ramp_boost_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);
> @@ -544,6 +583,8 @@ static unsigned int sugov_next_freq_shared(struct sugov_cpu *sg_cpu, u64 time)
> unsigned long j_util, j_max;
>
> j_util = sugov_get_util(j_sg_cpu);
> + if (j_sg_cpu == sg_cpu)
> + sugov_cpu_ramp_boost_update(sg_cpu, j_util);
> j_max = j_sg_cpu->max;
> j_util = sugov_iowait_apply(j_sg_cpu, time, j_util, j_max);
>
> @@ -553,6 +594,7 @@ static unsigned int sugov_next_freq_shared(struct sugov_cpu *sg_cpu, u64 time)
> }
> }
>
> +
> return get_next_freq(sg_policy, util, max);
> }
Best,
Patrick
--
#include <best/regards.h>
Patrick Bellasi
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-06-28 15:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-06-27 17:15 [RFC PATCH v2 0/5] sched/cpufreq: Make schedutil energy aware Douglas RAILLARD
2019-06-27 17:15 ` [RFC PATCH v2 1/5] PM: Introduce em_pd_get_higher_freq() Douglas RAILLARD
2019-06-27 17:16 ` [RFC PATCH v2 2/5] sched/cpufreq: Attach perf domain to sugov policy Douglas RAILLARD
2019-06-27 17:16 ` [RFC PATCH v2 3/5] sched/cpufreq: Hook em_pd_get_higher_power() into get_next_freq() Douglas RAILLARD
2019-06-27 17:16 ` [RFC PATCH v2 4/5] sched/cpufreq: Introduce sugov_cpu_ramp_boost Douglas RAILLARD
2019-06-28 15:08 ` Patrick Bellasi [this message]
2019-06-27 17:16 ` [RFC PATCH v2 5/5] sched/cpufreq: Boost schedutil frequency ramp up Douglas RAILLARD
2019-07-02 15:44 ` [RFC PATCH v2 0/5] sched/cpufreq: Make schedutil energy aware Peter Zijlstra
2019-07-03 13:38 ` Douglas Raillard
2019-07-08 11:13 ` Patrick Bellasi
2019-07-08 13:49 ` Douglas Raillard
2019-07-02 15:51 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-07-03 16:36 ` Douglas Raillard
2019-07-08 11:09 ` Patrick Bellasi
2019-07-08 13:46 ` Douglas Raillard
2019-07-09 10:37 ` Patrick Bellasi
2019-08-09 17:37 ` 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=20190628150859.e6dhb2hxnmtshpwb@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 \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--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
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).