Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:1;
MIME-Version: 1.0
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> <54f3b98c-1f7d-4205-9e3c-a4a19ad3d941@arm.com>
In-Reply-To: <54f3b98c-1f7d-4205-9e3c-a4a19ad3d941@arm.com>
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Date:   Thu, 14 Dec 2023 10:40:28 +0100
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0gD-utGhM3vN7JmPia1CVcSQa6RPnk2xMBXXc6asRTn=g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] cpufreq: Add a cpufreq pressure feedback for the scheduler
To:     Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>
Cc:     Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
        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
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 10:07 AM Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com> wrote:
>
> 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/

Actually, freq_qos_read_value(&policy->constraints, FREQ_QOS_MAX) will
return the requisite limit.