Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180209115155.GG12979@localhost.localdomain>
References: <1518109302-8239-1-git-send-email-claudio@evidence.eu.com>
 <20180209035143.GX28462@vireshk-i7> <197c26ba-c2a6-2de7-dffa-5b884079f746@evidence.eu.com>
 <11598161.veS9VGWB8G@aspire.rjw.lan> <20180209105305.GD12979@localhost.localdomain>
 <CAJZ5v0h9L2mMEaV6oECk9f2ob42Nr9zyqafymwvb+UP+G1q04Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180209112618.GE12979@localhost.localdomain> <CAJZ5v0g4bgDKP96rivKPE-EMr7SuUhL9OO=M+MQuAjbdq9R45g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180209115155.GG12979@localhost.localdomain>
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Date:   Fri, 9 Feb 2018 13:08:22 +0100
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0g-ypbVT77vSpjTX5mrpedu_=eH+O3b5d6PE5ydL1=VRQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: schedutil: rate limits for SCHED_DEADLINE
To:     Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Claudio Scordino <claudio@evidence.eu.com>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
        Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Todd Kjos <tkjos@android.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 12:51 PM, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 09/02/18 12:37, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 12:26 PM, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com> wrote:
>> > On 09/02/18 12:04, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> >> On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 11:53 AM, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com> wrote:
>> >> > Hi,
>> >> >
>> >> > On 09/02/18 11:36, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> >> >> On Friday, February 9, 2018 9:02:34 AM CET Claudio Scordino wrote:
>> >> >> > Hi Viresh,
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Il 09/02/2018 04:51, Viresh Kumar ha scritto:
>> >> >> > > On 08-02-18, 18:01, Claudio Scordino wrote:
>> >> >> > >> 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 have shown reductions of about 10% of deadline
>> >> >> > >> misses for tasks with low RT periods.
>> >> >> > >>
>> >> >> > >> The patch applies on top of the one recently proposed by Peter to drop the
>> >> >> > >> SCHED_CPUFREQ_* flags.
>> >> >> > >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> [cut]
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > Is it possible to (somehow) check here if the DL tasks will miss
>> >> >> > > deadline if we continue to run at current frequency? And only ignore
>> >> >> > > rate-limit if that is the case ?
>> >> >
>> >> > Isn't it always the case? Utilization associated to DL tasks is given by
>> >> > what the user said it's needed to meet a task deadlines (admission
>> >> > control). If that task wakes up and we realize that adding its
>> >> > utilization contribution is going to require a frequency change, we
>> >> > should _theoretically_ always do it, or it will be too late. Now, user
>> >> > might have asked for a bit more than what strictly required (this is
>> >> > usually the case to compensate for discrepancies between theory and real
>> >> > world, e.g.  hw transition limits), but I don't think there is a way to
>> >> > know "how much". :/
>> >>
>> >> You are right.
>> >>
>> >> I'm somewhat concerned about "fast switch" cases when the rate limit
>> >> is used to reduce overhead.
>> >
>> > Mmm, right. I'm thinking that in those cases we could leave rate limit
>> > as is. The user should then be aware of it and consider it as proper
>> > overhead when designing her/his system.
>> >
>> > But then, isn't it the same for "non fast switch" platforms? I mean,
>> > even in the latter case we can't go faster than hw limits.. mmm, maybe
>> > the difference is that in the former case we could go as fast as theory
>> > would expect.. but we shouldn't. :)
>>
>> Well, in practical terms that means "no difference" IMO. :-)
>>
>> I can imagine that in some cases this approach may lead to better
>> results than reducing the rate limit overall, but the general case I'm
>> not sure about.
>>
>> I mean, if overriding the rate limit doesn't take place very often,
>> then it really should make no difference overhead-wise.  Now, of
>> course, how to define "not very often" is a good question as that
>> leads to rate-limiting the overriding of the original rate limit and
>> that scheme may continue indefinitely ...
>
> :)
>
> My impression is that rate limit helps a lot for CFS, where the "true"
> utilization is not known in advance, and being too responsive might
> actually be counterproductive.
>
> For DEADLINE (and RT, with differences) we should always respond as
> quick as we can (and probably remember that a frequency transition was
> requested if hw was already performing one, but that's another patch)
> because, if we don't, a task belonging to a lower priority class might
> induce deadline misses in highest priority activities. E.g., a CFS task
> that happens to trigger a freq switch right before a DEADLINE task wakes
> up and needs an higher frequency to meet its deadline: if we wait for
> the rate limit of the CFS originated transition.. deadline miss!

Fair enough, but if there's too much overhead as a result of this, you
can't guarantee the deadlines to be met anyway.