From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752009AbdCCMtZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Mar 2017 07:49:25 -0500 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:41992 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751560AbdCCMtY (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Mar 2017 07:49:24 -0500 Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2017 12:38:30 +0000 From: Patrick Bellasi To: Viresh Kumar Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Steven Rostedt , Vincent Guittot , John Stultz , Juri Lelli , Todd Kjos , Tim Murray , Andres Oportus , Joel Fernandes , Morten Rasmussen , Dietmar Eggemann , Chris Redpath , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , "Rafael J . Wysocki" Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] cpufreq: schedutil: ensure max frequency while running RT/DL tasks Message-ID: <20170303123830.GB10420@e110439-lin> References: <1488469507-32463-1-git-send-email-patrick.bellasi@arm.com> <1488469507-32463-4-git-send-email-patrick.bellasi@arm.com> <20170303083145.GA8206@vireshk-i7> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170303083145.GA8206@vireshk-i7> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 03-Mar 14:01, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 02-03-17, 15:45, Patrick Bellasi wrote: > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c > > @@ -293,15 +305,29 @@ static void sugov_update_shared(struct update_util_data *hook, u64 time, > > if (curr == sg_policy->thread) > > goto done; > > > > + /* > > + * While RT/DL tasks are running we do not want FAIR tasks to > > + * overwrite this CPU's flags, still we can update utilization and > > + * frequency (if required/possible) to be fair with these tasks. > > + */ > > + rt_mode = task_has_dl_policy(curr) || > > + task_has_rt_policy(curr) || > > + (flags & SCHED_CPUFREQ_RT_DL); > > + if (rt_mode) > > + sg_cpu->flags |= flags; > > + else > > + sg_cpu->flags = flags; > > This looks so hacked up :) It is... a bit... :) > Wouldn't it be better to let the scheduler tell us what all kind of tasks it has > in the rq of a CPU and pass a mask of flags? That would definitively report a more consistent view of what's going on on each CPU. > I think it wouldn't be difficult (or time consuming) for the > scheduler to know that, but I am not 100% sure. Main issue perhaps is that cpufreq_update_{util,this_cpu} are currently called by the scheduling classes codes and not from the core scheduler. However I agree that it should be possible to build up such information and make it available to the scheduling classes code. I'll have a look at that. > IOW, the flags field in cpufreq_update_util() will represent all tasks in the > rq, instead of just the task that is getting enqueued/dequeued.. > > And obviously we need to get some utilization numbers for the RT and DL tasks > going forward, switching to max isn't going to work for ever :) Regarding this last point, there are WIP patches Juri is working on to feed DL demands to schedutil, his presentation at last ELC partially covers these developments: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzrcWNIneWY&index=37&list=PLbzoR-pLrL6pSlkQDW7RpnNLuxPq6WVUR Instead, RT tasks are currently covered by an rt_avg metric which we already know is not fitting for most purposes. It seems that the main goal is twofold: move people to DL whenever possible otherwise live with the go-to-max policy which is the only sensible solution to satisfy the RT's class main goal, i.e. latency reduction. Of course such a go-to-max policy for all RT tasks we already know that is going to destroy energy on many different mobile scenarios. As a possible mitigation for that, while still being compliant with the main RT's class goal, we recently posted the SchedTune v3 proposal: https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/2/28/355 In that proposal, the simple usage of CGroups and the new capacity_max attribute of the (existing) CPU controller should allow to define what is the "max" value which is just enough to match the latency constraints of a mobile application without sacrificing too much energy. > -- > viresh Cheers Patrick -- #include Patrick Bellasi