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;
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] sched/cpufreq/schedutil: handling urgent frequency
 requests
To:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@santannapisa.it>,
        Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org
References: <1525704215-8683-1-git-send-email-claudio@evidence.eu.com>
 <20180508065435.bcht6dyb3rpp6gk5@vireshk-i7>
From:   Claudio Scordino <claudio@evidence.eu.com>
Message-ID: <a3cf769c-5f71-17fb-eeee-6e7e17ffa78a@evidence.eu.com>
Date:   Tue, 8 May 2018 14:32:27 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180508065435.bcht6dyb3rpp6gk5@vireshk-i7>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


Il 08/05/2018 08:54, Viresh Kumar ha scritto:
> On 07-05-18, 16:43, Claudio Scordino wrote:
>> At OSPM, it was mentioned the issue about urgent CPU frequency requests
>> arriving when a frequency switch is already in progress.
>>
>> Besides the various issues (physical time for switching frequency,
>> on-going kthread activity, etc.) one (minor) issue is the kernel
>> "forgetting" such request, thus waiting the next switch time for
>> recomputing the needed frequency and behaving accordingly.
>>
>> This patch makes the kthread serve any urgent request occurred during
>> the previous frequency switch. It introduces a specific flag, only set
>> when the SCHED_DEADLINE scheduling class increases the CPU utilization,
>> aiming at decreasing the likelihood of a deadline miss.
>>
>> Indeed, some preliminary tests in critical conditions (i.e.
>> SCHED_DEADLINE tasks with short periods) have shown reductions of more
>> than 10% of the average number of deadline misses. On the other hand,
>> the increase in terms of energy consumption when running SCHED_DEADLINE
>> tasks (not yet measured) is likely to be not negligible (especially in
>> case of critical scenarios like "ramp up" utilizations).
>>
>> The patch is meant as follow-up discussion after OSPM.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Claudio Scordino <claudio@evidence.eu.com>
>> CC: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
>> CC: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
>> CC: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
>> CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
>> CC: Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
>> CC: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>
>> Cc: Luca Abeni <luca.abeni@santannapisa.it>
>> CC: Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>
>> CC: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org
>> ---
>>   kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++--
>>   1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
>> index d2c6083..4de06b0 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
>> @@ -41,6 +41,7 @@ struct sugov_policy {
>>   	bool			work_in_progress;
>>   
>>   	bool			need_freq_update;
>> +	bool			urgent_freq_update;
>>   };
>>   
>>   struct sugov_cpu {
>> @@ -92,6 +93,14 @@ static bool sugov_should_update_freq(struct sugov_policy *sg_policy, u64 time)
>>   	    !cpufreq_can_do_remote_dvfs(sg_policy->policy))
>>   		return false;
>>   
>> +	/*
>> +	 * Continue computing the new frequency. In case of work_in_progress,
>> +	 * the kthread will resched a change once the current transition is
>> +	 * finished.
>> +	 */
>> +	if (sg_policy->urgent_freq_update)
>> +		return true;
>> +
>>   	if (sg_policy->work_in_progress)
>>   		return false;
>>   
>> @@ -121,6 +130,9 @@ static void sugov_update_commit(struct sugov_policy *sg_policy, u64 time,
>>   	sg_policy->next_freq = next_freq;
>>   	sg_policy->last_freq_update_time = time;
>>   
>> +	if (sg_policy->work_in_progress)
>> +		return;
>> +
>>   	if (policy->fast_switch_enabled) {
>>   		next_freq = cpufreq_driver_fast_switch(policy, next_freq);
>>   		if (!next_freq)
>> @@ -274,7 +286,7 @@ static inline bool sugov_cpu_is_busy(struct sugov_cpu *sg_cpu) { return false; }
>>   static inline void ignore_dl_rate_limit(struct sugov_cpu *sg_cpu, struct sugov_policy *sg_policy)
>>   {
>>   	if (cpu_util_dl(cpu_rq(sg_cpu->cpu)) > sg_cpu->util_dl)
>> -		sg_policy->need_freq_update = true;
>> +		sg_policy->urgent_freq_update = true;
>>   }
>>   
>>   static void sugov_update_single(struct update_util_data *hook, u64 time,
>> @@ -383,8 +395,11 @@ static void sugov_work(struct kthread_work *work)
>>   	struct sugov_policy *sg_policy = container_of(work, struct sugov_policy, work);
>>   
>>   	mutex_lock(&sg_policy->work_lock);
>> -	__cpufreq_driver_target(sg_policy->policy, sg_policy->next_freq,
>> +	do {
>> +		sg_policy->urgent_freq_update = false;
>> +		__cpufreq_driver_target(sg_policy->policy, sg_policy->next_freq,
>>   				CPUFREQ_RELATION_L);
> 
> If we are going to solve this problem, then maybe instead of the added
> complexity and a new flag we can look for need_freq_update flag at this location
> and re-calculate the next frequency if required.

I agree.
Indeed, I've been in doubt if adding a new flag or relying on the existing need_freq_update flag (whose name, however, didn't seem to reflect any sense of urgency).
Maybe we can use need_freq_update but change its name to a more meaningful string ?

Thanks,

            Claudio