Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:8 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:8;
Message-ID: <777b1258-eae2-4f57-9abc-326d1c456c47@arm.com>
Date:   Thu, 14 Dec 2023 08:19:15 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] sched/fair: Be less aggressive in calling
 cpufreq_update_util()
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Qais Yousef <qyousef@layalina.io>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
        linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Wei Wang <wvw@google.com>, Rick Yiu <rickyiu@google.com>,
        Chung-Kai Mei <chungkai@google.com>,
        Hongyan Xia <hongyan.xia2@arm.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
References: <20231208015242.385103-1-qyousef@layalina.io>
 <20231208015242.385103-2-qyousef@layalina.io>
 <bc525124-da79-45af-a99b-ec4616b3fa6b@arm.com>
 <20231210205156.kausxdcwsydggwie@airbuntu>
 <8ee6425a-0a0e-4391-9fd3-8fe74c809772@arm.com>
 <20231212121023.mehtligcuwcmjtz4@airbuntu>
From:   Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>
In-Reply-To: <20231212121023.mehtligcuwcmjtz4@airbuntu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


On 12/12/23 12:10, Qais Yousef wrote:
> On 12/11/23 07:56, Lukasz Luba wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 12/10/23 20:51, Qais Yousef wrote:
>>> On 12/08/23 10:05, Lukasz Luba wrote:
>>>> Hi Qais,
>>>>
>>>> On 12/8/23 01:52, Qais Yousef wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>>> @@ -6704,14 +6677,6 @@ enqueue_task_fair(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int flags)
>>>>>     	 */
>>>>>     	util_est_enqueue(&rq->cfs, p);
>>>>> -	/*
>>>>> -	 * If in_iowait is set, the code below may not trigger any cpufreq
>>>>> -	 * utilization updates, so do it here explicitly with the IOWAIT flag
>>>>> -	 * passed.
>>>>> -	 */
>>>>> -	if (p->in_iowait)
>>>>> -		cpufreq_update_util(rq, SCHED_CPUFREQ_IOWAIT);
>>>>> -
>>>>
>>>> Why this io wait boost is considered as the $subject says 'aggressive'
>>>> calling?
>>>
>>> This will trigger a frequency update along with the iowait boost. Did I miss
>>> something?
>>
>> Yes, it will change CPU freq and it was the main goal for this code
>> path. We have tests which check how that works on different memory
>> types.
>>
>> Why do you want to remove it?
> 
> It seems you missed this hunk? I of course didn't remove it altogether if
> that's what you mean :)
> 
> 	@@ -6772,6 +6737,8 @@ enqueue_task_fair(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p, int flags)
> 	 enqueue_throttle:
> 		assert_list_leaf_cfs_rq(rq);
> 
> 	+       cpufreq_update_util(rq, p->in_iowait ? SCHED_CPUFREQ_IOWAIT : 0);
> 	+
> 		hrtick_update(rq);
> 	 }
> 

Yes, you're right, I missed that change. I will have to spend some time
to figure out this new flow in the whole patch set.


>>
>> Did you run some tests (e.g. fio, gallery, etc) to check if you still
>> have a decent performance out some new ufs/nvme memories?
> 
> PCMark storage gives
> 
> before*: 29681
> after: 30014

The result looks good.

Thanks,
Lukasz