From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
To: Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@linaro.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Juri Lelli <Juri.Lelli@arm.com>,
Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>,
Steve Muckle <smuckle@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] sched: cpufreq: use rt_avg as estimate of required RT CPU capacity
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 03:31:07 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1779842.1JHXT67au9@vostro.rjw.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1472236848-17038-3-git-send-email-smuckle@linaro.org>
On Friday, August 26, 2016 11:40:48 AM Steve Muckle wrote:
> A policy of going to fmax on any RT activity will be detrimental
> for power on many platforms. Often RT accounts for only a small amount
> of CPU activity so sending the CPU frequency to fmax is overkill. Worse
> still, some platforms may not be able to even complete the CPU frequency
> change before the RT activity has already completed.
>
> Cpufreq governors have not treated RT activity this way in the past so
> it is not part of the expected semantics of the RT scheduling class. The
> DL class offers guarantees about task completion and could be used for
> this purpose.
>
> Modify the schedutil algorithm to instead use rt_avg as an estimate of
> RT utilization of the CPU.
>
> Based on previous work by Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>.
If we do it for RT, why not to do a similar thing for DL? As in the
original patch from Peter, for example?
> Signed-off-by: Steve Muckle <smuckle@linaro.org>
> ---
> kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c | 26 +++++++++++++++++---------
> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> index cb8a77b1ef1b..89094a466250 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> @@ -146,13 +146,21 @@ static unsigned int get_next_freq(struct sugov_cpu *sg_cpu, unsigned long util,
>
> static void sugov_get_util(unsigned long *util, unsigned long *max)
> {
> - struct rq *rq = this_rq();
> - unsigned long cfs_max;
> + int cpu = smp_processor_id();
> + struct rq *rq = cpu_rq(cpu);
> + unsigned long max_cap, rt;
> + s64 delta;
>
> - cfs_max = arch_scale_cpu_capacity(NULL, smp_processor_id());
> + max_cap = arch_scale_cpu_capacity(NULL, cpu);
>
> - *util = min(rq->cfs.avg.util_avg, cfs_max);
> - *max = cfs_max;
> + delta = rq_clock(rq) - rq->age_stamp;
> + if (unlikely(delta < 0))
> + delta = 0;
> + rt = div64_u64(rq->rt_avg, sched_avg_period() + delta);
> + rt = (rt * max_cap) >> SCHED_CAPACITY_SHIFT;
These computations are rather heavy, so I wonder if they are avoidable based
on the flags, for example?
Plus is SCHED_CAPACITY_SHIFT actually defined for all architectures?
One more ugly thing is about using rq_clock(rq) directly from here whereas we
pass it around as the 'time' argument elsewhere.
> +
> + *util = min(rq->cfs.avg.util_avg + rt, max_cap);
> + *max = max_cap;
> }
Thanks,
Rafael
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-08-31 1:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-08-26 18:40 [PATCH 0/2] utilization changes for schedutil Steve Muckle
2016-08-26 18:40 ` [PATCH 1/2] sched: cpufreq: ignore SMT when determining max cpu capacity Steve Muckle
2016-08-31 1:27 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-08-31 14:34 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-09-12 22:25 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-08-26 18:40 ` [PATCH 2/2] sched: cpufreq: use rt_avg as estimate of required RT CPU capacity Steve Muckle
2016-08-31 1:31 ` Rafael J. Wysocki [this message]
2016-08-31 14:49 ` Steve Muckle
2016-08-31 14:39 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-08-31 15:08 ` Steve Muckle
2016-08-31 16:28 ` Thomas Gleixner
2016-08-31 16:40 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-08-31 17:00 ` Juri Lelli
2016-09-01 7:12 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-09-01 21:48 ` Steve Muckle
2016-09-02 9:35 ` Juri Lelli
2016-09-02 12:17 ` Thomas Gleixner
2016-08-31 22:50 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2016-09-02 8:12 ` Thomas Gleixner
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=1779842.1JHXT67au9@vostro.rjw.lan \
--to=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=Juri.Lelli@arm.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.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@kernel.org \
--cc=smuckle@linaro.org \
--cc=steve.muckle@linaro.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®