Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1752810AbdGSFhR (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Wed, 19 Jul 2017 01:37:17 -0400
Received: from mail-pg0-f45.google.com ([74.125.83.45]:32989 "EHLO
        mail-pg0-f45.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751754AbdGSFhP (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 19 Jul 2017 01:37:15 -0400
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 11:07:11 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com>
Cc: Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>,
        Andres Oportus <andresoportus@google.com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>,
        Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>, "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v5] cpufreq: schedutil: Make iowait boost more energy
 efficient
Message-ID: <20170719053711.GA352@vireshk-i7>
References: <20170716080407.28492-1-joelaf@google.com>
 <20170717080441.GM352@vireshk-i7>
 <CAJWu+oqU+qVMM4M0k4d7YeUFV-Aq4vZUU3JyWrMy6GQHA1MLQw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170718054558.GU352@vireshk-i7>
 <20170718140254.qfsxczbkvrcugrv3@e106622-lin>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170718140254.qfsxczbkvrcugrv3@e106622-lin>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1410
Lines: 37

On 18-07-17, 15:02, Juri Lelli wrote:
> Mmm, seems to make sense to me. :/
> 
> Would the following work (on top of Joel's v5)? Rationale being that
> only in sugov_set_iowait_boost we might bump freq up (if no iowait_boost
> was set) or start from policy->min. In sugov_iowait_boost (consumer)
> instead we do the decay (if no boosting was pending).
> 
> ---
>  kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++----------
>  1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> index 46b2479641cc..b270563c15a5 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> @@ -171,8 +171,14 @@ static void sugov_set_iowait_boost(struct sugov_cpu *sg_cpu, u64 time,
>  {
>  	if (flags & SCHED_CPUFREQ_IOWAIT) {
>  		sg_cpu->iowait_boost_pending = true;
> -		sg_cpu->iowait_boost = max(sg_cpu->iowait_boost,
> -					   sg_cpu->sg_policy->policy->min);
> +		if (sg_cpu->iowait_boost) {
> +			/* Bump up 2*current_boost until hitting max */
> +			sg_cpu->iowait_boost = max(sg_cpu->iowait_boost << 1,
> +						   sg_cpu->iowait_boost_max);

And we are back at where we started :)

This wouldn't work because sugov_set_iowait_boost() gets called a lot.
Maybe 10 times within a rate_limit_us period.

The thumb rule is, never double/half the boost from
sugov_set_iowait_boost() :)

-- 
viresh