Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-138413-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2024 16:59:33 +0530
From: Atul Kumar Pant <quic_atulpant@quicinc.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
CC: <mingo@redhat.com>, <juri.lelli@redhat.com>, <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>, <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        <bsegall@google.com>, <mgorman@suse.de>, <bristot@redhat.com>,
        <vschneid@redhat.com>, <rafael@kernel.org>,
        <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>, <kernel@quicinc.com>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] Disable RT-throttling for idle-inject threads
Message-ID: <20240410112933.GA3190796@hu-atulpant-hyd.qualcomm.com>
References: <20240410045417.3048209-1-quic_atulpant@quicinc.com>
 <20240410085441.GA21455@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240410085441.GA21455@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>

On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 10:54:41AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 10:24:15AM +0530, Atul Pant wrote:
> > We are trying to implement a solution for thermal mitigation by using
> > idle injection on CPUs.  However we face some limitations with the
> > current idle-inject framework. As per our need, we want to start
> > injecting idle cycles on a cpu for indefinite time (until the
> > temperature/power of the CPU falls below a threshold). This will allow
> > to keep the hot CPUs in the sleep state until we see improvement in
> > temperature/power. If we set idle duration to a large value or have an
> > idle-injection ratio of 100%,  then the idle-inject RT thread suffers
> > from RT throttling. This results in the CPU exiting from the sleep state
> > and consume some power.
> > 
> > To solve this limitation, we propose a solution to disable RT-throttling
> > whenever idle-inject threads run. We achieve this by not accounting the
> > runtime for the idle-inject threads.
> 
> Running RT tasks for indefinite amounts of time will wreck the system.
> Things like workqueues and other per-cpu threads expect service or
> things will pile up and run to ground.
> 
> Idle injection, just like every other RT user must not be able to starve
> the system of service.
> 
> If your system design requires this (I would argue it is broken), look
> at other means, like CPU-hotplug (which I also really detest) -- which
> takes down the CPU in a controlled manner and avoids the resource
> issues.

Hi Peter,
We are trying to add support for true 100% idle-injection ratio from
idle-injection framework. It might happen that we want to run idle cycles for
slightly more time than permitted by RT-bandwidth control.  We understand the
concern about it hogging the cpu. Will it be better if we make it a choice for
the user who uses idle-inject framework, whether to have true 100%
idle-injection support or not?

Thanks
Atul