linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
	Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
	Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>,
	Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@intel.com>,
	Gabriele Mazzotta <gabriele.mzt@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFT][Update][PATCH 2/2] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Update max CPU frequency on global turbo changes
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2019 11:59:42 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190307115940.jtoklaqarxl4mrb2@queper01-lin> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJZ5v0hDBPBciBKEKpS_HBTHLiiZ0gKKkzGYPJ6fafNNMn48ew@mail.gmail.com>

On Thursday 07 Mar 2019 at 12:25:10 (+0100), Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 12:03 PM Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Rafael,
> >
> > On Wednesday 06 Mar 2019 at 11:05:47 (+0100), Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > Please recall that the iowait boosting algo was different to start
> > > with, though: it jumped to the max right away and then backed off.
> > > That turned out to be overly aggressive in general and led to some
> > > undesired "jittery" behavior, which is why it was changed.
> > >
> > > Thus it looks like the platforms on which it still jumps to the max
> > > right away may actually benefit from changing it to more steps. :-)
> >
> > On the energy side of things at least ... ;-)
> >
> > > In turn, the platforms where it takes more than 3 steps for the boost
> > > to get to the max would get a slight performance improvement from this
> > > changes and I'm not sure why that could be bad.
> >
> > For energy possibly ? IIUC this thread:
> >
> >     https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9735885/
> >
> > the original intent of the ramp thing for the iowait boost was to reduce
> > power consumption.
> >
> > > Moreover, it didn't depend on the min originally, just on the max and
> > > just because I wanted the number of backoff steps needed to go back
> > > down to zero to be independent of the platform IIRC.  The dependency
> > > on the min is sort of artificial here and leads to arbitrary
> > > differences in behavior between different platforms which isn't
> > > particularly fortunate.
> >
> > It's a question of perspective I would say. Right now you can say the
> > behaviour is somewhat coherent across platforms: getting an IOWAIT boost
> > means you'll run twice as fast regardless of your board. With the '128
> > approach', you may or may not run faster, depending on your set of OPPs.
> >
> > Also on recent big little SoCs, the capacity ratio can be pretty high.
> > You can get little CPUs with 300 of capacity or so. The arbitrary 128
> > thing is basically gonna go near max freq in one step, although the CPUs
> > actually 20 available OPPs or so. And I guess that's a shame.
> 
> OK, you seem to be arguing that on some platforms there is a little
> difference between 128 and 1024 in terms of power, while there may be
> a lot of difference between, say, 64 and 128.

Well, in fact what I was saying here is wrong. As Peter said in another
email, we'll scale the boost to the CPU's cap, so even on little CPUs it
would take 4 steps to go to max ... So the problem I was trying to
highlight here simply doesn't exist.

So yes, please ignore that point :/

> I can buy that, but then it also makes sense to boost quickly enough,
> so maybe it could start at the min and jump from there to 256 right
> away in the first step?
> 
> > For these reasons, I feel like it's not completely idiotic to have a
> > platform-dependent starting point, although arguably min_freq might not
> > always be the best choice.
> >
> > > With all of that in mind, I would go right away to making the boost
> > > independent of min and max (the final number of steps to reach the max
> > > is TBD in practice, but 3 looks like a good enough compromise to me).
> >
> > Perhaps the energy model could help find a good starting point, and a
> > good number of steps ?
> >
> > FWIW there should be a slot at OSPM to discuss how sugov could be made
> > smarter using the EM :-).
> 
> Well, if you can make a case for that. :-)

:-)

Thanks,
Quentin

  reply	other threads:[~2019-03-07 11:59 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-03-01 12:43 [RFT][PATCH 0/2] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Handle _PPC updates on global turbo disable/enable Rafael J. Wysocki
2019-03-01 12:45 ` [RFT][PATCH 1/2] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Driver-specific handling of _PPC updates Rafael J. Wysocki
2019-03-01 12:47 ` [RFT][PATCH 2/2] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Update max CPU frequency on global turbo changes Rafael J. Wysocki
2019-03-01 12:57   ` [RFT][Update][PATCH " Rafael J. Wysocki
2019-03-04 14:39     ` Yu Chen
2019-03-05 10:42     ` Quentin Perret
2019-03-05 10:50       ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2019-03-05 10:58         ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2019-03-05 11:44           ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-03-05 11:52             ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2019-03-05 12:00             ` Quentin Perret
2019-03-05 12:24               ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-03-05 17:02               ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2019-03-05 17:37                 ` Quentin Perret
2019-03-06 10:05                   ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2019-03-07 11:02                     ` Quentin Perret
2019-03-07 11:23                       ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-03-07 11:49                         ` Quentin Perret
2019-03-07 11:25                       ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2019-03-07 11:59                         ` Quentin Perret [this message]
2019-03-05 11:01         ` Quentin Perret
2019-03-01 17:39 ` [RFT][PATCH 0/2] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Handle _PPC updates on global turbo disable/enable Srinivas Pandruvada
2019-03-02 10:30   ` Yu Chen
2019-03-02 16:24     ` Srinivas Pandruvada
2019-03-03 17:03   ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2019-03-03 21:20     ` Srinivas Pandruvada
2019-03-03 21:51       ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2019-03-04  4:06         ` Srinivas Pandruvada
2019-03-04  9:41           ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2019-03-04 18:06             ` Srinivas Pandruvada
2019-03-04 21:57               ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2019-03-04 23:04                 ` Srinivas Pandruvada
2019-03-05  8:40                   ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2019-03-03 22:42 ` Gabriele Mazzotta
2019-03-04  9:58   ` 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=20190307115940.jtoklaqarxl4mrb2@queper01-lin \
    --to=quentin.perret@arm.com \
    --cc=gabriele.mzt@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rafael@kernel.org \
    --cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
    --cc=srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
    --cc=yu.c.chen@intel.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).