linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6/6] cpufreq: schedutil: New governor based on scheduler utilization data

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 3 Mar 2016 17:28:55 +0000
From:	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>,
	Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@...aro.org>,
	ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
	Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] cpufreq: schedutil: New governor based on scheduler
 utilization data

On 03/03/16 16:28, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 04:38:17PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 03:01:15PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>>> In case a more formal derivation of this formula is needed, it is
>>>> based on the following 3 assumptions:
>>>>
>>>> (1) Performance is a linear function of frequency.
>>>> (2) Required performance is a linear function of the utilization ratio
>>>> x = util/max as provided by the scheduler (0 <= x <= 1).
>>>
>>> Just to mention that the utilization that you are using, varies with
>>> the frequency which add another variable in your equation
>>
>> Right, x86 hasn't implemented arch_scale_freq_capacity(), so the
>> utilization values we use are all over the map. If we lower freq, the
>> util will go up, which would result in us bumping the freq again, etc..
> 
> Something like the completely untested below should maybe work.
> 
> Rafael?
> 

[...]

> +void arch_scale_freq_tick(void)
> +{
> +	u64 aperf, mperf;
> +	u64 acnt, mcnt;
> +
> +	if (!static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_APERFMPERF))
> +		return;
> +
> +	aperf = rdmsrl(MSR_IA32_APERF);
> +	mperf = rdmsrl(MSR_IA32_APERF);
> +
> +	acnt = aperf - this_cpu_read(arch_prev_aperf);
> +	mcnt = mperf - this_cpu_read(arch_prev_mperf);
> +
> +	this_cpu_write(arch_prev_aperf, aperf);
> +	this_cpu_write(arch_prev_mperf, mperf);
> +
> +	this_cpu_write(arch_cpu_freq, div64_u64(acnt * SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE, mcnt));

Wasn't there the problem that this ratio goes to zero if the cpu is idle
in the old power estimation approach on x86?

[...]