linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Thara Gopinath <thara.gopinath@linaro.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: mingo@redhat.com, ionela.voinescu@arm.com,
	vincent.guittot@linaro.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
	rui.zhang@intel.com, qperret@google.com,
	daniel.lezcano@linaro.org, viresh.kumar@linaro.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, amit.kachhap@gmail.com,
	javi.merino@kernel.org, amit.kucheria@verdurent.com
Subject: Re: [Patch v8 4/7] sched/fair: Enable periodic update of average thermal pressure
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 15:20:13 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5E2216FD.5040903@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200116151502.GQ2827@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>

On 01/16/2020 10:15 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 02:57:36PM -0500, Thara Gopinath wrote:
>> Introduce support in CFS periodic tick and other bookkeeping apis
>> to trigger the process of computing average thermal pressure for a
>> cpu. Also consider avg_thermal.load_avg in others_have_blocked
>> which allows for decay of pelt signals.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Thara Gopinath <thara.gopinath@linaro.org>
>> ---
>>  kernel/sched/fair.c | 8 ++++++++
>>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> index 8da0222..311bb0b 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> @@ -7470,6 +7470,9 @@ static inline bool others_have_blocked(struct rq *rq)
>>  	if (READ_ONCE(rq->avg_dl.util_avg))
>>  		return true;
>>  
>> +	if (READ_ONCE(rq->avg_thermal.load_avg))
>> +		return true;
>> +
> 
> Given that struct sched_avg is 1 cacheline, the above is a pointless
> guaranteed cacheline miss if the arch doesn't
> CONFIG_HAVE_SCHED_THERMAL_PRESSURE.
Thanks for the review Peter. I see your suggestion in Patch 1 to fix
this issue. Will send out the next version implementing it.

> 
>>  #ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_SCHED_AVG_IRQ
>>  	if (READ_ONCE(rq->avg_irq.util_avg))
>>  		return true;
>> @@ -7495,6 +7498,7 @@ static bool __update_blocked_others(struct rq *rq, bool *done)
>>  {
>>  	const struct sched_class *curr_class;
>>  	u64 now = rq_clock_pelt(rq);
>> +	unsigned long thermal_pressure = arch_cpu_thermal_pressure(cpu_of(rq));
>>  	bool decayed;
>>  
>>  	/*
>> @@ -7505,6 +7509,8 @@ static bool __update_blocked_others(struct rq *rq, bool *done)
>>  
>>  	decayed = update_rt_rq_load_avg(now, rq, curr_class == &rt_sched_class) |
>>  		  update_dl_rq_load_avg(now, rq, curr_class == &dl_sched_class) |
>> +		  update_thermal_load_avg(rq_clock_task(rq), rq,
>> +					  thermal_pressure) 			|
>>  		  update_irq_load_avg(rq, 0);
>>  
>>  	if (others_have_blocked(rq))
> 
> That there indentation trainwreck is a reason to rename the function.
> 
> 	decayed = update_rt_rq_load_avg(now, rq, curr_class == &rt_sched_class) |
> 		  update_dl_rq_load_avg(now, rq, curr_class == &dl_sched_class) |
> 		  update_thermal_load_avg(rq_clock_task(rq), rq, thermal_pressure) |
> 		  update_irq_load_avg(rq, 0);
> 
> Is much better.

Did you intend to say here to rename  update_thermal_load_avg to
something else ?
> 
> But now that you made me look at that, I noticed it's using a different
> clock -- it is _NOT_ using now/rq_clock_pelt(), which means it'll not be
> in sync with the other averages.
> 
> Is there a good reason for that?

So I guess as Vincent has replied in his email, rq_clock_pelt adjusts
clock for frequency and cpu capacity invariance. Thermal pressure signal
is already accounted for it when updated from the thermal framework.
> 
>> @@ -10275,6 +10281,7 @@ static void task_tick_fair(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *curr, int queued)
>>  {
>>  	struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq;
>>  	struct sched_entity *se = &curr->se;
>> +	unsigned long thermal_pressure = arch_cpu_thermal_pressure(cpu_of(rq));
>>  
>>  	for_each_sched_entity(se) {
>>  		cfs_rq = cfs_rq_of(se);
>> @@ -10286,6 +10293,7 @@ static void task_tick_fair(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *curr, int queued)
>>  
>>  	update_misfit_status(curr, rq);
>>  	update_overutilized_status(task_rq(curr));
>> +	update_thermal_load_avg(rq_clock_task(rq), rq, thermal_pressure);
>>  }
> 
> I'm thinking this is the wrong place; should this not be in
> scheduler_tick(), right before calling sched_class::task_tick() ? Surely
> any execution will affect thermals, not only fair class execution.

I read all other comments from others on this. I agree. I will move this
to scheduler_tick.

> 


-- 
Warm Regards
Thara

  parent reply	other threads:[~2020-01-17 20:20 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-01-14 19:57 [Patch v8 0/7] Introduce Thermal Pressure Thara Gopinath
2020-01-14 19:57 ` [Patch v8 1/7] sched/pelt: Add support to track thermal pressure Thara Gopinath
2020-01-16 15:17   ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-01-23 19:15     ` Dietmar Eggemann
2020-01-24 19:07       ` Thara Gopinath
2020-01-27  9:28         ` Dietmar Eggemann
2020-01-28 13:32           ` Thara Gopinath
2020-01-28 16:15             ` Dietmar Eggemann
2020-02-13 12:03   ` Amit Kucheria
2020-02-13 12:31     ` Amit Kucheria
2020-01-14 19:57 ` [Patch v8 2/7] sched/topology: Add hook to read per cpu " Thara Gopinath
2020-01-14 19:57 ` [Patch v8 3/7] arm,arm64,drivers:Add infrastructure to store and update instantaneous " Thara Gopinath
2020-01-14 19:57 ` [Patch v8 4/7] sched/fair: Enable periodic update of average " Thara Gopinath
2020-01-16 15:15   ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-01-17 11:40     ` Quentin Perret
2020-01-17 12:31       ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-01-17 13:17         ` Vincent Guittot
2020-01-17 13:45           ` Quentin Perret
2020-01-17 13:22     ` Vincent Guittot
2020-01-17 14:55       ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-01-17 15:39         ` Vincent Guittot
2020-01-24 15:37           ` Dietmar Eggemann
2020-01-24 15:45             ` Vincent Guittot
2020-01-27 12:09               ` Dietmar Eggemann
2020-01-27 15:15                 ` Vincent Guittot
2020-01-29 15:41                   ` Dietmar Eggemann
2020-01-30  9:49                     ` Vincent Guittot
2020-01-17 20:20     ` Thara Gopinath [this message]
2020-01-14 19:57 ` [Patch v8 5/7] sched/fair: update cpu_capacity to reflect " Thara Gopinath
2020-01-14 19:57 ` [Patch v8 6/7] thermal/cpu-cooling: Update thermal pressure in case of a maximum frequency capping Thara Gopinath
2020-01-14 19:57 ` [Patch v8 7/7] sched/fair: Enable tuning of decay period Thara Gopinath
2020-01-17 11:47   ` Quentin Perret
2020-01-17 15:45     ` Thara Gopinath

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=5E2216FD.5040903@linaro.org \
    --to=thara.gopinath@linaro.org \
    --cc=amit.kachhap@gmail.com \
    --cc=amit.kucheria@verdurent.com \
    --cc=daniel.lezcano@linaro.org \
    --cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
    --cc=ionela.voinescu@arm.com \
    --cc=javi.merino@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=qperret@google.com \
    --cc=rui.zhang@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).