From: Andreas Herrmann <aherrmann@suse.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Cc: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Stratos Karafotis <stratosk@semaphore.gr>,
Thomas Renninger <trenn@suse.com>
Subject: [PATCH 1/1] cpufreq: pcc-cpufreq: Re-introduce deadband effect to reduce number of frequency changes
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2016 14:21:01 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160819122101.GB17296@suselix.suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160819121814.GA17296@suselix.suse.de>
Commit 6393d6a102 (cpufreq: ondemand: Eliminate the deadband effect)
introduced a performance regression for systems using pcc-cpufreq and
ondemand governor. This is measurable with different workloads. E.g.
wall-clock time for kernel compilation significantly increased.
The elimination of the deadband effect significantly increased the
number of frequency changes with pcc-cpufreq.
Instead of reverting commit 6393d6a102 I suggest to add a workaround
in pcc-cpufreq to re-introduce the deadband effect for this driver
only - to restore the old performance behaviour with pcc-cpufreq with
ondemand governor.
Following some performance numbers for similar kernel compilations to
illustrate the effect of commit 6393d6a102 and the proposed fix.
Following typical numbers of kernel compilation tests with varying number of
compile jobs:
v4.8.0-rc2 4.8.0-rc2-pcc-cpufreq-deadband
# of jobst user sys elapsed CPU user sys elapsed CPU
2 440.39 116.49 4:33.35 203% 404.85 109.10 4:10.35 205%
4 436.87 133.39 2:22.88 399% 381.83 128.00 2:06.84 401%
8 475.49 157.68 1:22.24 769% 344.36 149.08 1:04.29 767%
16 620.69 188.33 0:54.74 1477% 374.60 157.40 0:36.76 1447%
32 815.79 209.58 0:37.22 2754% 490.46 160.22 0:24.87 2616%
64 394.13 60.55 0:13.54 3355% 386.54 60.33 0:12.79 3493%
120 398.24 61.55 0:14.60 3148% 390.44 61.19 0:13.07 3453%
(HP ProLiant DL580 Gen8 system, 60 CPUs @ 2.80GHz)
Link: http://marc.info/?l=linux-pm&m=147160912625600
Signed-off-by: Andreas Herrmann <aherrmann@suse.com>
---
drivers/cpufreq/pcc-cpufreq.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 20 insertions(+)
If this change is accepted maybe it's a good idea to tag it also for
stable kernels, e.g. starting with v4.4.
Thanks,
Andreas
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/pcc-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/pcc-cpufreq.c
index 3f0ce2a..d2e2963 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/pcc-cpufreq.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/pcc-cpufreq.c
@@ -200,10 +200,26 @@ static int pcc_cpufreq_target(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
{
struct pcc_cpu *pcc_cpu_data;
struct cpufreq_freqs freqs;
+ static u32 limit = 0;
+
u16 status;
u32 input_buffer;
int cpu;
+ if (!limit) {
+ u32 f_min = policy->cpuinfo.min_freq / 1000;
+ u32 f_max = policy->cpuinfo.max_freq / 1000;
+ limit = (f_max - f_min) * f_min;
+ limit /= f_max;
+ limit *= 1000;
+ limit += f_min * 1000;
+ pr_debug("pcc-cpufreq: setting deadband limit to %u kHz\n",
+ limit);
+ }
+
+ if (target_freq < limit)
+ target_freq = policy->min;
+
cpu = policy->cpu;
pcc_cpu_data = per_cpu_ptr(pcc_cpu_info, cpu);
@@ -214,6 +230,10 @@ static int pcc_cpufreq_target(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
freqs.old = policy->cur;
freqs.new = target_freq;
+
+ if (freqs.new == freqs.old)
+ return 0;
+
cpufreq_freq_transition_begin(policy, &freqs);
spin_lock(&pcc_lock);
--
2.1.4
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-08-19 12:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-08-19 12:18 [PATCH 0/1] " Andreas Herrmann
2016-08-19 12:21 ` Andreas Herrmann [this message]
2016-08-29 6:01 ` [PATCH 1/1] " Viresh Kumar
2016-09-01 13:21 ` Andreas Herrmann
2016-09-07 5:02 ` Viresh Kumar
2016-09-13 10:53 ` Andreas Herrmann
2016-09-14 14:56 ` Andreas Herrmann
2016-10-05 5:17 ` Viresh Kumar
2016-10-11 6:28 ` Andreas Herrmann
2016-09-16 9:47 ` Andreas Herrmann
2016-09-16 18:48 ` Stratos Karafotis
[not found] ` <CADmjqpNE9f7fzQjWsHKB4wEjLq-4ZvQpaC314OcLdQ-i_TAABg@mail.gmail.com>
2016-09-19 16:16 ` Andreas Herrmann
2016-09-19 19:39 ` Stratos Karafotis
2016-09-22 17:54 ` Andreas Herrmann
2016-10-05 5:21 ` Viresh Kumar
2016-08-19 12:40 ` [PATCH 0/1] " Andreas Herrmann
2016-09-23 16:56 ` [PATCH v2 0/2] " Andreas Herrmann
2016-09-23 17:02 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] cpufreq/ondemand: Introduce op to customize mapping of load to frequency Andreas Herrmann
2016-10-05 4:01 ` Viresh Kumar
2016-10-11 6:30 ` Andreas Herrmann
2016-09-23 17:07 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] cpufreq/pcc-cpufreq: Make use of map_load_to_freq op Andreas Herrmann
2016-09-26 9:05 ` [PATCH v3 " Andreas Herrmann
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=20160819122101.GB17296@suselix.suse.de \
--to=aherrmann@suse.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=stratosk@semaphore.gr \
--cc=trenn@suse.com \
--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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®