linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC v4] cpufreq: schedutil: Make iowait boost more energy efficient

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]

Message-ID: <20170712094623.GE1679@vireshk-i7>
Date:   Wed, 12 Jul 2017 15:16:23 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@....com>,
        Andres Oportus <andresoportus@...gle.com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
        Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v4] cpufreq: schedutil: Make iowait boost more energy
 efficient

On 12-07-17, 11:36, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 10:30:35AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 11-07-17, 07:14, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> 
> > > Another approach than setting min in sugov_set_iowait_boost, is, since
> > > we have already retrieved the current util, we can check if flags ==
> > > SCHED_CPUFREQ_IOWAIT, then set initial the iowait_boost such that
> > > (iowait_boost / iowait_boost_max) is aleast equal to (util / max) or
> > > iowait_boost_min, which ever is lower.
> > 
> > So my concerns weren't only about the initial min value, but also that you
> > reduce the freq from sugov_set_iowait_boost(). We can discuss what the ideal
> > value to start with can be.
> 
> I'm not sure I see that. He only mucks with iowait_boost, not the actual
> frequency afaict.
> 
> And sugov_iowait_boost() picks the highest of util vs iowait_boost,
> which wasn't changed.
> 
> Or am I completely missing something? (that code is a bit hard to
> follow)

No, I wasn't clear enough. Sorry about that. Lemme try again:

Suppose min freq is 500 MHz and Max is 2 GHz. The iowait-boost is
set to 1 GHz right now (because of previous events with IOWAIT flag
set), and sugov_set_iowait_boost() gets called again with IOWAIT flag,
we boost the iowait-boost value to 2 GHz. We are in the rate_limit_us
window right now, we return without changing the frequency.

If the next call into the schedutil governor happens due to normal
util-update, flags will be passed as 0. With the current patch, we
will bring iowait-boost back to 1 GHz (before updating the real
frequency to 2 GHz) as the prev-iowait-boost boolean would be set.

And even if the task is periodically getting queued after IOWAIT,
actual boosting may not happen at all in some cases.

-- 
viresh