Subject: Re: [PATCH] base: arch_topology: Use policy->max to calculate
 freq_factor
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>
Cc:     Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>
References: <20211115201010.68567-1-thara.gopinath@linaro.org>
 <CAJZ5v0gezoJZVH69Y7fDwa-uLhE0PaqFrzM=0bequxpE_749zg@mail.gmail.com>
 <8f7397e3-4e92-c84d-9168-087967f4d683@arm.com>
 <CAJZ5v0iRDtr5yae5UndwU2SmVL4cak=BN0irVGbgNzQiS8K3mA@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Thara Gopinath <thara.gopinath@linaro.org>
Message-ID: <af59de78-49b0-d2e6-4bf0-7c897c2fccb1@linaro.org>
Date:   Wed, 17 Nov 2021 12:01:04 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAJZ5v0iRDtr5yae5UndwU2SmVL4cak=BN0irVGbgNzQiS8K3mA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

On 11/17/21 7:49 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 11:46 AM Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Rafael,
>>
>> On 11/16/21 7:05 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 9:10 PM Thara Gopinath
>>> <thara.gopinath@linaro.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> cpuinfo.max_freq can reflect boost frequency if enabled during boot.  Since
>>>> we don't consider boost frequencies while calculating cpu capacities, use
>>>> policy->max to populate the freq_factor during boot up.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure about this.  schedutil uses cpuinfo.max_freq as the max frequency.
>>
>> Agree it's tricky how we treat the boost frequencies and also combine
>> them with thermal pressure.
>> We probably would have consider these design bits:
>> 1. Should thermal pressure include boost frequency?
> 
> Well, I guess so.
> 
> Running at a boost frequency certainly increases thermal pressure.
> 
>> 2. Should max capacity 1024 be a boost frequency so scheduler
>>      would see it explicitly?
> 
> That's what it is now if cpuinfo.max_freq is a boost frequency.
> 
>> - if no, then schedutil could still request boost freq thanks to
>>     map_util_perf() where we add 25% to the util and then
>>     map_util_freq() would return a boost freq when util was > 1024
>>
>>
>> I can see in schedutil only one place when cpuinfo.max_freq is used:
>> get_next_freq(). If the value stored in there is a boost,
>> then don't we get a higher freq value for the same util?
> 
> Yes. we do, which basically is my point.
> 
> The schedutil's response is proportional to cpuinfo.max_freq and that
> needs to be taken into account for the results to be consistent.

So IIUC, cpuinfo.max_freq is always supposed to be the highest supported 
frequency of a cpu, irrespective of whether boost is enabled or not. 
Where as policy->max is the currently available maximum cpu frequency 
which can be equal to cpuinfo.max_freq or lower (depending on whether 
boost is enabled, whether there is a constraint on policy->max placed by 
thermal etc). So in this case isn't it better for schedutil to consider 
policy->max instead of cpuinfo.max ? Like you mentioned above same 
utilization will relate to different frequencies depending on the 
maximum frequency.


> 

-- 
Warm Regards
Thara (She/Her/Hers)