[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180130131531.GD2269@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 14:15:31 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, rjw@...ysocki.net,
srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] sched/fair: Use a recently used CPU as an idle
candidate and the basis for SIS
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 12:57:18PM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 12:50:54PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Not saying this patch is bad; but Rafael / Srinivas we really should do
> > better. Why isn't cpufreq (esp. sugov) fixing this? HWP or not, we can
> > still give it hints, and it looks like we're not doing that.
> >
>
> I'm not sure if HWP can fix it because of the per-cpu nature of its
> decisions. I believe it can only give the most basic of hints to hardware
> like an energy performance profile or bias (EPP and EPB respectively).
> Of course HWP can be turned off but not many people can detect that it's
> an appropriate decision, or even desirable, and there is always the caveat
> that disabling it increases the system CPU footprint.
IA32_HWP_REQUEST has "Minimum_Performance", "Maximum_Performance" and
"Desired_Performance" fields which can be used to give explicit
frequency hints. And we really _should_ be doing that.
Because, esp. in this scenario; a task migrating; the hardware really
can't do anything sensible, whereas the OS _knows_.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists