All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Claudio Scordino <claudio@evidence.eu.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Cc: Claudio Scordino <claudio@evidence.eu.com>,
	"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
	Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>,
	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
	Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
	Todd Kjos <tkjos@android.com>, Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>,
	linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH v4] cpufreq: schedutil: rate limits for SCHED_DEADLINE
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 11:35:40 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1520937340-2755-1-git-send-email-claudio@evidence.eu.com> (raw)

When the SCHED_DEADLINE scheduling class increases the CPU utilization,
we should not wait for the rate limit, otherwise we may miss some
deadline.

Tests using rt-app on Exynos5422 with up to 10 SCHED_DEADLINE tasks have
shown reductions of even 10% of deadline misses with a negligible
increase of energy consumption (measured through Baylibre Cape).

Signed-off-by: Claudio Scordino <claudio@evidence.eu.com>
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
CC: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
CC: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
CC: Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
CC: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
CC: Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>
CC: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>
CC: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
CC: Todd Kjos <tkjos@android.com>
CC: Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>
CC: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org
CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
---
Changes from v3:
 - Specific routine renamed as ignore_dl_rate_limit()
---
Changes from v2:
 - Rate limit ignored also in case of "fast switch"
 - Specific routine added
---
Changes from v1:
 - Logic moved from sugov_should_update_freq() to
   sugov_update_single()/_shared() to not duplicate data structures
 - Rate limit not ignored in case of "fast switch"
---
 kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c | 14 ++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)

diff --git a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
index feb5f89..2aeb1ca 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
@@ -257,6 +257,16 @@ static bool sugov_cpu_is_busy(struct sugov_cpu *sg_cpu)
 static inline bool sugov_cpu_is_busy(struct sugov_cpu *sg_cpu) { return false; }
 #endif /* CONFIG_NO_HZ_COMMON */
 
+/*
+ * Make sugov_should_update_freq() ignore the rate limit when DL
+ * has increased the utilization.
+ */
+static inline void ignore_dl_rate_limit(struct sugov_cpu *sg_cpu, struct sugov_policy *sg_policy)
+{
+	if (cpu_util_dl(cpu_rq(sg_cpu->cpu)) > sg_cpu->util_dl)
+		sg_policy->need_freq_update = true;
+}
+
 static void sugov_update_single(struct update_util_data *hook, u64 time,
 				unsigned int flags)
 {
@@ -270,6 +280,8 @@ static void sugov_update_single(struct update_util_data *hook, u64 time,
 	sugov_set_iowait_boost(sg_cpu, time);
 	sg_cpu->last_update = time;
 
+	ignore_dl_rate_limit(sg_cpu, sg_policy);
+
 	if (!sugov_should_update_freq(sg_policy, time))
 		return;
 
@@ -351,6 +363,8 @@ sugov_update_shared(struct update_util_data *hook, u64 time, unsigned int flags)
 
 	raw_spin_lock(&sg_policy->update_lock);
 
+	ignore_dl_rate_limit(sg_cpu, sg_policy);
+
 	sugov_get_util(sg_cpu);
 	sg_cpu->flags = flags;
 
-- 
2.7.4

             reply	other threads:[~2018-03-13 10:35 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-03-13 10:35 Claudio Scordino [this message]
2018-03-13 11:15 ` [PATCH v4] cpufreq: schedutil: rate limits for SCHED_DEADLINE Viresh Kumar
2018-03-14  1:27   ` Joel Fernandes
2018-03-14 11:20     ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2018-03-23 21:51 ` [tip:sched/core] sched/cpufreq: Rate " tip-bot for Claudio Scordino

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=1520937340-2755-1-git-send-email-claudio@evidence.eu.com \
    --to=claudio@evidence.eu.com \
    --cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
    --cc=joelaf@google.com \
    --cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=morten.rasmussen@arm.com \
    --cc=patrick.bellasi@arm.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com \
    --cc=tkjos@android.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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.