From: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
To: Qais Yousef <qyousef@layalina.io>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
Christian Loehle <christian.loehle@arm.com>,
Hongyan Xia <hongyan.xia2@arm.com>,
John Stultz <jstultz@google.com>,
linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] sched: Consolidate cpufreq updates
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2024 14:58:30 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <f281ba07-d54a-460a-8f78-f7eb6bd8ed88@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240619201409.2071728-1-qyousef@layalina.io>
On 19/06/2024 22:14, Qais Yousef wrote:
[...]
> 1. context_switch()
> 2. task_tick_fair()
> 3. update_blocked_averages()
Nit: Got recently renamed to sched_balance_update_blocked_averages(). (*)
> 4. on syscall that changes policy or uclamp values
sched_setscheduler() ?
> 5. on check_preempt_wakeup_fair() if wakeup preemption failed
>
> The update at context switch should help guarantee that DL and RT get
> the right frequency straightaway when they're RUNNING. As mentioned
> though the update will happen slightly after enqueue_task(); though in
> an ideal world these tasks should be RUNNING ASAP and this additional
> delay should be negligible. For fair tasks we need to make sure we send
> a single update for every decay for the root cfs_rq. Any changes to the
> rq will be deferred until the next task is ready to run, or we hit TICK.
> But we are guaranteed the task is running at a level that meets its
> requirements after enqueue.
>
> To guarantee RT and DL tasks updates are never missed, we add a new
> SCHED_CPUFREQ_FORCE_UPDATE to ignore the rate_limit_us. If we are
> already running at the right freq, the governor will end up doing
> nothing, but we eliminate the risk of the task ending up accidentally
> running at the wrong freq due to rate_limit_us.
>
> Similarly for iowait boost, we ignore rate limits. We also handle a case
> of a boost reset prematurely by adding a guard in sugov_iowait_apply()
> to reduce the boost after 1ms which seems iowait boost mechanism relied
> on rate_limit_us and cfs_rq.decay preventing any updates to happen soon
s/cfs_rq.decay/cfs_rq.decayed
> after iowait boost.
>
> The new SCHED_CPUFREQ_FORCE_UPDATE should not impact the rate limit
> time stamps otherwise we can end up delaying updates for normal
> requests.
>
> As a simple optimization, we avoid sending cpufreq updates when
> switching from RT to another RT as RT tasks run at max freq by default.
> If CONFIG_UCLAMP_TASK is enabled, we can do a simple check to see if
> uclamp_min is different to avoid unnecessary cpufreq update as most RT
> tasks are likely to be running at the same performance level, so we can
> avoid unnecessary overhead of forced updates when there's nothing to do.
>
> We also ensure to ignore cpufreq udpates for sugov workers at context
> switch. It doesn't make sense for the kworker that applies the frequency
> update (which is a DL task) to trigger a frequency update itself.
>
> The update at task_tick_fair will guarantee that the governor will
Nit: s/task_tick_fair/task_tick_fair()
> follow any updates to load for tasks/CPU or due to new enqueues/dequeues
> to the rq. Since DL and RT always run at constant frequencies and have
> no load tracking, this is only required for fair tasks.
>
> The update at update_blocked_averages() will ensure we decay frequency
(*)
> as the CPU becomes idle for long enough.
>
> If the currently running task changes its policy or uclamp values, we
> ensure we follow up with cpufreq update to ensure we follow up with any
> potential new perf requirements based on the new change.
>
> To handle systems with long TICK where tasks could end up enqueued but
> no preemption happens until TICK, we add an update in
> check_preempt_wakeup_fair() if wake up preemption fails. This will send
> special SCHED_CPUFREQ_TASK_ENQUEUED cpufreq update to tell the governor
> that the state of the CPU has changed and it can consider an update if
> it deems worthwhile. In schedutil this will do an update if no update
> was done since sysctl_sched_base_slice which is our ideal slice length
> for context switch.
>
> Since we now DL tasks always ignore rate limit, remove
s/we//?
[...]
> @@ -4917,6 +4927,84 @@ static inline void __balance_callbacks(struct rq *rq)
>
> #endif
>
> +static __always_inline void
> +__update_cpufreq_ctx_switch(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev)
> +{
> +#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_FREQ
> + if (prev && prev->dl.flags & SCHED_FLAG_SUGOV) {
> + /* Sugov just did an update, don't be too aggressive */
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + /*
> + * RT and DL should always send a freq update. But we can do some
> + * simple checks to avoid it when we know it's not necessary.
> + *
> + * iowait_boost will always trigger a freq update too.
> + *
> + * Fair tasks will only trigger an update if the root cfs_rq has
> + * decayed.
> + *
> + * Everything else should do nothing.
> + */
> + switch (current->policy) {
> + case SCHED_NORMAL:
> + case SCHED_BATCH:
What about SCHED_IDLE tasks?
> + if (unlikely(current->in_iowait)) {
> + cpufreq_update_util(rq, SCHED_CPUFREQ_IOWAIT | SCHED_CPUFREQ_FORCE_UPDATE);
> + return;
> + }
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> + if (unlikely(rq->cfs.decayed)) {
> + rq->cfs.decayed = false;
> + cpufreq_update_util(rq, 0);
> + return;
> + }
> +#else
> + cpufreq_update_util(rq, 0);
> +#endif
We can have !CONFIG_SMP and CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED systems. Does this
mean on those systems we call cpufreq_update_util() for each cfs_rq of
the hierarchy where on CONFIG_SMP we only do this for the root cfs_rq?
[...]
> @@ -4744,8 +4716,8 @@ static inline void update_load_avg(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *s
> if (se->avg.last_update_time && !(flags & SKIP_AGE_LOAD))
> __update_load_avg_se(now, cfs_rq, se);
>
> - decayed = update_cfs_rq_load_avg(now, cfs_rq);
> - decayed |= propagate_entity_load_avg(se);
> + cfs_rq->decayed |= update_cfs_rq_load_avg(now, cfs_rq);
> + cfs_rq->decayed |= propagate_entity_load_avg(se);
>
> if (!se->avg.last_update_time && (flags & DO_ATTACH)) {
>
> @@ -4766,11 +4738,8 @@ static inline void update_load_avg(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct sched_entity *s
> */
> detach_entity_load_avg(cfs_rq, se);
> update_tg_load_avg(cfs_rq);
> - } else if (decayed) {
> - cfs_rq_util_change(cfs_rq, 0);
> -
> - if (flags & UPDATE_TG)
> - update_tg_load_avg(cfs_rq);
> + } else if (cfs_rq->decayed && (flags & UPDATE_TG)) {
> + update_tg_load_avg(cfs_rq);
> }
> }
You set cfs_rq->decayed for each taskgroup level but you only reset it
for the root cfs_rq in __update_cpufreq_ctx_switch() and task_tick_fair()?
[...]
> @@ -8418,6 +8378,14 @@ static void check_preempt_wakeup_fair(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int
> if (pick_eevdf(cfs_rq) == pse)
> goto preempt;
>
> +nopreempt:
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> + if (rq->cfs.decayed && rq->cfs.h_nr_running > 1)
> + cpufreq_update_util(rq, SCHED_CPUFREQ_TASK_ENQUEUED);
Why don't you set rq->cfs.decayed to false here as well?
Is it because the request might fail in sugov_should_update_freq() in
case 'delta_ns < sysctl_sched_base_slice'?
[...]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-06-25 12:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-06-19 20:14 Qais Yousef
2024-06-25 12:58 ` Dietmar Eggemann [this message]
2024-06-28 1:52 ` Qais Yousef
2024-07-04 10:12 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2024-07-05 0:22 ` Qais Yousef
2024-07-05 11:50 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2024-07-09 7:49 ` Vincent Guittot
2024-07-24 21:10 ` Qais Yousef
2024-07-27 8:15 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2024-07-28 19:29 ` Qais Yousef
2024-07-09 7:48 ` Vincent Guittot
2024-07-10 16:22 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2024-07-24 21:22 ` Qais Yousef
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=f281ba07-d54a-460a-8f78-f7eb6bd8ed88@arm.com \
--to=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=bristot@redhat.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=christian.loehle@arm.com \
--cc=hongyan.xia2@arm.com \
--cc=jstultz@google.com \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=qyousef@layalina.io \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
--cc=vschneid@redhat.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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®