From: Giovanni Gherdovich <ggherdovich@suse.cz>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
Michael Larabel <Michael@phoronix.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [RFT][PATCH v1] cpufreq: ACPI: Set cpuinfo.max_freq directly if max boost is known
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2021 11:45:49 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1613558749.2373.55.camel@suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1974978.nRy8TqEeLZ@kreacher>
On Mon, 2021-02-15 at 20:24 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
>
> Commit 3c55e94c0ade ("cpufreq: ACPI: Extend frequency tables to cover
> boost frequencies") attempted to address a performance issue involving
> acpi-cpufreq, the schedutil governor and scale-invariance on x86 by
> extending the frequency tables created by acpi-cpufreq to cover the
> entire range of "turbo" (or "boost") frequencies, but that caused
> frequencies reported via /proc/cpuinfo and the scaling_cur_freq
> attribute in sysfs to change which may confuse users and monitoring
> tools.
>
> For this reason, revert the part of commit 3c55e94c0ade adding the
> extra entry to the frequency table and use the observation that
> in principle cpuinfo.max_freq need not be equal to the maximum
> frequency listed in the frequency table for the given policy.
>
> Namely, modify cpufreq_frequency_table_cpuinfo() to allow cpufreq
> drivers to set their own cpuinfo.max_freq above that frequency and
> change acpi-cpufreq to set cpuinfo.max_freq to the maximum boost
> frequency found via CPPC.
>
> This should be sufficient to let all of the cpufreq subsystem know
> the real maximum frequency of the CPU without changing frequency
> reporting.
>
> Link: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=211305
> Fixes: 3c55e94c0ade ("cpufreq: ACPI: Extend frequency tables to cover boost frequencies")
> Reported-by: Matt McDonald <gardotd426@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> ---
>
> Michael, Giovanni,
>
> The fix for the EPYC performance regression that was merged into 5.11 introduced
> an undesirable side-effect by distorting the CPU frequency reporting via
> /proc/cpuinfo and scaling_cur_freq (see the BZ link above for details).
>
> The patch below is reported to address this problem and it should still allow
> schedutil to achieve desirable performance, because it simply sets
> cpuinfo.max_freq without extending the frequency table of the CPU.
>
> Please test this one and let me know if it adversely affects performance.
>
> Thanks!
Hello Rafael,
more extended testing confirms the initial feeling; performance with this
patch is mostly identical to vanilla v5.11. Tbench shows an improvement.
Thanks for the fix!
Tested-by: Giovanni Gherdovich <ggherdovich@suse.cz>
Results follow. The machine has two sockets with an AMD EPYC 7742 each.
The governor is always schedutil.
Ratios of time, lower is better:
v5.11 v5.11
vanilla patch
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NASA Parallel Benchmarks w/ MPI 1.00 0.96
NASA Parallel Benchmarks w/ OpenMP 1.00 ~
dbench on XFS 1.00 ~
Linux kernel compilation 1.00 ~
git unit test suite 1.00 ~
Ratio of throughput, higher is better:
v5.11 v5.11
vanilla patch
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
tbench on localhost 1.00 1.09
Tilde (~): no change wrt baseline.
Giovanni
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-02-17 10:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-02-15 19:24 [RFT][PATCH v1] cpufreq: ACPI: Set cpuinfo.max_freq directly if max boost is known Rafael J. Wysocki
2021-02-16 1:49 ` Michael Larabel
2021-02-17 13:23 ` Michael Larabel
2021-02-16 15:02 ` Giovanni Gherdovich
2021-02-17 10:45 ` Giovanni Gherdovich [this message]
2021-02-17 14:18 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
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=1613558749.2373.55.camel@suse.cz \
--to=ggherdovich@suse.cz \
--cc=Michael@phoronix.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.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
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).