Message-ID: <20160601200940.GS9864@graphite.smuckle.net>
Date:	Wed, 1 Jun 2016 13:09:40 -0700
From:	Steve Muckle <steve.muckle@...aro.org>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
	Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
	Juri Lelli <Juri.Lelli@....com>,
	Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>,
	Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
	Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] sched: cpufreq: call cpufreq hook from remote CPUs

On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 12:46:06PM -0700, Steve Muckle wrote:
> Hi Peter, Ingo,

Hi Peter/Ingo would appreciate any thoughts you may have on the issue
below.

thanks,
Steve

> 
> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 04:04:19PM -0700, Steve Muckle wrote:
> > On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 11:06:14PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > In the case of a remote update the hook has to run (or not) after it is
> > > > known whether preemption will occur so we don't do needless work or
> > > > IPIs. If the policy CPUs aren't known in the scheduler then the early
> > > > hook will always need to be called along with an indication that it is
> > > > the early hook being called. If it turns out to be a remote update it
> > > > could then be deferred to the later hook, which would only be called
> > > > when a remote update has been deferred and preemption has not occurred.
> > > >
> > > > This means two hook inovcations for a remote non-preempting wakeup
> > > > though instead of one.  Perhaps this is a good middle ground on code
> > > > churn vs. optimization though.
> > > 
> > > I would think so.
> > 
> > Ok, I will pursue this approach.
> 
> I'd like to get your opinion here before proceeding further...
> 
> To catch you up and summarize, I'm trying to implement support for
> calling the scheduler cpufreq callback during remote wakeups.  Currently
> the scheduler cpufreq callback is only called when the target CPU is the
> current CPU. If a remote wakeup does not result in preemption, the CPU
> frequency may currently not be adjusted appropriately for up to a tick,
> when we are guaranteed to call the hook again.
> 
> Invoking schedutil promptly for the target CPU in this situation means
> sending an IPI if the current CPU is not in the target CPU's frequency
> domain. This is because often a cpufreq driver must run on a CPU within
> the frequency domain it is bound to.  But the catch is that we should
> not do this and incur the overhead of an IPI if preemption will occur,
> as in that case the scheduler (and schedutil) will run soon on the
> target CPU anyway, potentially as a result of the scheduler sending its
> own IPI.
> 
> I figured this unnecessary overhead would be unacceptable and so have
> been working on an approach to avoid it. Unfortunately the current hooks
> happen before the preemption decision is made. My current implementation
> sets a flag if schedutil sees a remote wakeup and then bails. There's a
> test to call the hook again at the end of check_preempt_curr() if the flag
> is set.  The flag is cleared by resched_curr() as that means preemption
> will happen on the target CPU. The flag currently lives at the end of
> the rq struct. I could move it into the update_util_data hook structure
> or elsewhere, but that would mean accessing another per-cpu item in
> hot scheduler paths.
> 
> Thoughts? Note the current implementation described above differs a bit
> from the last posting in this thread, per discussion with Rafael.
> 
> thanks,
> Steve

Powered by blists - more mailing lists