Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.37 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.37;
Message-ID: <54f3b98c-1f7d-4205-9e3c-a4a19ad3d941@arm.com>
Date:   Thu, 14 Dec 2023 09:08:04 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] cpufreq: Add a cpufreq pressure feedback for the
 scheduler
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Cc:     catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org, sudeep.holla@arm.com,
        rafael@kernel.org, agross@kernel.org, andersson@kernel.org,
        konrad.dybcio@linaro.org, mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org,
        juri.lelli@redhat.com, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
        rostedt@goodmis.org, bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de,
        bristot@redhat.com, vschneid@redhat.com, rui.zhang@intel.com,
        mhiramat@kernel.org, daniel.lezcano@linaro.org,
        amit.kachhap@gmail.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20231212142730.998913-1-vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
 <20231212142730.998913-2-vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
 <20231214054307.axl33gagxacidjbn@vireshk-i7>
 <CAKfTPtDam5eQO1DHxALsCaU53Rtawbfrvswy+z2unnV_eXeVLA@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKfTPtDam5eQO1DHxALsCaU53Rtawbfrvswy+z2unnV_eXeVLA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


On 12/14/23 07:57, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 at 06:43, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 12-12-23, 15:27, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>> @@ -2618,6 +2663,9 @@ static int cpufreq_set_policy(struct cpufreq_policy *policy,
>>>        policy->max = __resolve_freq(policy, policy->max, CPUFREQ_RELATION_H);
>>>        trace_cpu_frequency_limits(policy);
>>>
>>> +     cpus = policy->related_cpus;
>>> +     cpufreq_update_pressure(cpus, policy->max);
>>> +
>>>        policy->cached_target_freq = UINT_MAX;
>>
>> One more question, why are you doing this from cpufreq_set_policy ? If
>> due to cpufreq cooling or from userspace, we end up limiting the
>> maximum possible frequency, will this routine always get called ?
> 
> Yes, any update of a FREQ_QOS_MAX ends up calling cpufreq_set_policy()
> to update the policy->max
> 

Agree, cpufreq sysfs scaling_max_freq is also important to handle
in this new design. Currently we don't reflect that as reduced CPU
capacity in the scheduler. There was discussion when I proposed to feed
that CPU frequency reduction into thermal_pressure [1].

The same applies for the DTPM which is missing currently the proper
impact to the CPU reduced capacity in the scheduler.

IMHO any limit set into FREQ_QOS_MAX should be visible in this
new design of capacity reduction signaling.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220930094821.31665-2-lukasz.luba@arm.com/