Date:	Wed, 24 Feb 2016 02:20:49 +0100
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To:	Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
	Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@...aro.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: [RFC/RFT][PATCH v2 0/2] cpufreq: New governor based on scheduler-provided utilization data

On Monday, February 22, 2016 12:16:11 AM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
> 
> Usually, I don't send introductory messages for single patches, but this
> one is an exception, because I didn't want to put all of my considerations
> into the patch changelog.
> 
> So I have been told for a few times already that I should not introduce
> interfaces passing arguments that aren't used in the current code and without
> telling anyone what my plans for using those aguments in the future may be
> (although IMO that would not be too hard to figure out), so here's an example.
> 
> Juri, that's not what you may have expected.  In fact, I didn't expect it to
> look like this either when I started to think about it.  Initially, I was
> considering to modify the existing governors to use the utilization data
> somehow, but then I realized that it would make them behave differently and
> that might confuse some.
> 
> So here it is: a new functional cpufreq governor.  It is very simple (arguably
> on the verge of being overly simplistic), but it gets the job done.  I have only
> tested it (very lightly) on a system with one CPU per cpufreq policy (so the
> "shared" path in it is admittedly untested), but in that simple case the
> frequency evidently follows the CPU utilization as expected.
> 
> The reason why I didn't post it earlier was because I needed to clean up the
> existing governor code enough to be able to do anything new on top of it (you
> might have noticed the cleanup work going during the last couple of weeks).
> 
> Now, there are a few observations to be made about it that may be interesting
> to someone (they definitely are interesting to me).  Some of them are mentioned
> in the patch changelog too.
> 
> First off, note how simple it is: 250 lines of code including struct definitions
> and the boilerplate part (and the copyright notice and all).  It might be quite
> difficult to invent something simpler and still doing significant work.
> 
> As is, it may not make the best scaling decisions (in particular, it will tend
> to over-provision DL tasks), but at least it sould be very predictable.  I might
> have added things like up_threshold and sampling_down_factor to it, but I decided
> against doing that as it would muddy the waters a bit.  Also, when I had tested
> it, it looked aggressive enough to me without those.
> 
> Second, note that the majority of work in it is done in the callbacks invoked
> from scheduler code paths.  If cpufreq drivers are modified to provide a "fast
> frequency update" method that will be practical to invoke from those paths, *all*
> of the work in that governor may be done in there.  It's almost like the scheduler
> telling the frequency scaling driver directly "this is your frequency, use it".
> 
> Next, it is hooked up to the existing cpufreq governor infrastructure which
> allows the existing sysfs interface that people are used to and familiar with to
> be used with it.  That also allows any existing cpufreq drivers to be used with
> the new governor without any modifications, so if you are interested in how it
> compares with "ondemand" and "conservative", apply the patch, build the new
> governor into the kernel and echo "schedutil" to "scaling_governor" for your CPUs. :-)
> 
> [It cannot be made the default cpufreq governor ATM (for a bit of safety), but
> that can be changed easily enough if someone wants to.]
> 
> Further, it is a "sampling governor" on the surface, but this really is not a
> hard requirement.  In fact, it is quite straightforward to notice that util and
> max are used directly as obtained from the scheduler without any sampling.  If
> my understanding of the relevant CFS code is correct, util already contains
> contributions form what happened in the past, so it should be fine to use it as
> provided.
> 
> The sampling rate really plays the role of a rate limit for frequency updates.
> The current code rather needs that because of the way it updates the CPU frequency
> (from a work item run in process context), but if (at least some) cpufreq drivers
> are taught to update the frequency "on the fly", it should be possible to dispense
> with the sampling.  Of course, we still may find that rate limitting CPU
> frequency changes is generally useful, but there may be special "emergency"
> updates from the scheduler that will be reacted to immediately without
> waiting for the whole "sampling period" to pass, for example.
> 
> Moreover, the new governor departs from the "let's code for the most complicated
> case and the simpler ones will be handled automatically" approach that seems to
> have been used throughout cpufreq, as it explicitly makes the "one CPU per cpufreq
> policy" case special.  In that case, the values of util and max are not even
> stored in the governor's data structures, but used immediately.  That allows it
> to reduce the extra overhead from itself when possible.
> 
> Finally, but not least importantly, the new governor is completely generic.  It
> doesn't depend on any system-specific or architecture-specific magic (other than
> the policy sharing on systems where groups of CPUs have to be handled together)
> to get the job done.  Thus it may be possible to use it as a base line for more
> sophisticated frequency scaling solutions.
> 
> That last bit may be particularly important for systems where the only source
> of information on the available frequency+voltage configurations of the CPUs
> is something like ACPI tables and there is no information on the respective
> cost of putting the CPUs into those configurations in terms of energy (and
> no information on how much energy is consumed in the idle states available
> on the given system).  With so little information on the "power topology" of
> the system, so to speak, using the "frequency follows the utilization" rule
> may simply be as good as it gets.  Even then (or maybe especially in those
> cases), the frequency scaling mechanism should be reasonably lightweight and
> effective, if possible, and this governor indicates that, indeed, that should
> be possible to achieve.
> 
> There are two way in which this can be taken further.  The first, quite
> obvious, one is to make it possible for cpufreq drivers to provide a method
> for switching frequencies from interrupt context so as to avoid the need to
> use the process-context work items for that, where possible.  The second one,
> depending on the former, would be to try to eliminate the sampling rate and
> simply update the frequency whenever the utilization changes and see how far
> that would take us.  In addition to that, one may want to play with the
> frequency selection formula (eg. to make it more or less aggressive etc).
> 
> The patch is on top of the linux-next branch of the linux-pm.git tree (that
> should be part of the tomorrow's linux-next if all goes well), but it should
> also apply on top of the pm-cpufreq-test branch in that tree (which only
> contains changes related to cpufreq governors).

I have a new version of this with one modification and a patch implementing
frequency changes from interrupt context on top of it.  Both patches will
follow.

Thanks,
Rafael

Powered by blists - more mailing lists