[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0iVvbhJGXV-mC2tv9iEiQB05GrtJjsDnQ5Hj0N9f43U2A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 12:13:01 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: Claudio Scordino <claudio@...dence.eu.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Todd Kjos <tkjos@...roid.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] cpufreq: schedutil: rate limits for SCHED_DEADLINE
On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 11:29 AM, Claudio Scordino
<claudio@...dence.eu.com> wrote:
> When the SCHED_DEADLINE scheduling class increases the CPU utilization,
> we should not wait for the rate limit, otherwise we may miss some
> deadline.
>
> Tests using rt-app on Exynos5422 with up to 10 SCHED_DEADLINE tasks have
> shown reductions of even 10% of deadline misses with a negligible
> increase of energy consumption (measured through Baylibre Cape).
>
> Signed-off-by: Claudio Scordino <claudio@...dence.eu.com>
> CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
> CC: Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>
> CC: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
> CC: Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>
> CC: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>
> CC: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
> CC: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
> CC: Todd Kjos <tkjos@...roid.com>
> CC: Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>
> CC: linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
> CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> ---
> Changes from v2:
> - Rate limit ignored also in case of "fast switch"
> - Specific routine added
> ---
> Changes from v1:
> - Logic moved from sugov_should_update_freq() to
> sugov_update_single()/_shared() to not duplicate data structures
> - Rate limit not ignored in case of "fast switch"
> ---
> kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> index 7936f54..13f9cce 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> @@ -260,6 +260,17 @@ static bool sugov_cpu_is_busy(struct sugov_cpu *sg_cpu)
> static inline bool sugov_cpu_is_busy(struct sugov_cpu *sg_cpu) { return false; }
> #endif /* CONFIG_NO_HZ_COMMON */
>
> +/*
> + * Make sugov_should_update_freq() ignore the rate limit when DL
> + * has increased the utilization.
> + */
> +static inline
I wouldn't break the line here
> +void set_dl_rate_limit(struct sugov_cpu *sg_cpu, struct sugov_policy *sg_policy)
and the name might be better as Viresh said, but overall
Reviewed-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
> +{
> + if (cpu_util_dl(cpu_rq(sg_cpu->cpu)) > sg_cpu->util_dl)
> + sg_policy->need_freq_update = true;
> +}
> +
> static void sugov_update_single(struct update_util_data *hook, u64 time,
> unsigned int flags)
> {
> @@ -273,6 +284,8 @@ static void sugov_update_single(struct update_util_data *hook, u64 time,
> sugov_set_iowait_boost(sg_cpu, time);
> sg_cpu->last_update = time;
>
> + set_dl_rate_limit(sg_cpu, sg_policy);
> +
> if (!sugov_should_update_freq(sg_policy, time))
> return;
>
> @@ -354,6 +367,8 @@ static void sugov_update_shared(struct update_util_data *hook, u64 time,
>
> raw_spin_lock(&sg_policy->update_lock);
>
> + set_dl_rate_limit(sg_cpu, sg_policy);
> +
> sugov_get_util(sg_cpu);
> sg_cpu->flags = flags;
>
> --
> 2.7.4
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists