[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1570177786.30086.1.camel@suse.cz>
Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2019 10:29:46 +0200
From: Giovanni Gherdovich <ggherdovich@...e.cz>
To: Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
x86@...nel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Quentin Perret <qperret@...rret.net>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
Doug Smythies <dsmythies@...us.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Conditional frequency
invariant accounting
On Thu, 2019-10-03 at 20:31 -0700, Srinivas Pandruvada wrote:
> On Thu, 2019-10-03 at 20:05 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 2:29:26 PM CEST Giovanni Gherdovich
> > wrote:
> > > From: Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>
> > >
> > > intel_pstate has two operating modes: active and passive. In "active"
> > > mode, the in-built scaling governor is used and in "passive" mode, the
> > > driver can be used with any governor like "schedutil". In "active" mode
> > > the utilization values from schedutil is not used and there is a
> > > requirement from high performance computing use cases, not to readas
> > > well any APERF/MPERF MSRs.
> >
> > Well, this isn't quite convincing.
> >
> > In particular, I don't see why the "don't read APERF/MPERF MSRs" argument
> > applies *only* to intel_pstate in the "active" mode. What about
> > intel_pstate in the "passive" mode combined with the "performance"
> > governor? Or any other governor different from "schedutil" for that
> > matter?
> >
> > And what about acpi_cpufreq combined with any governor different from
> > "schedutil"?
> >
> > Scale invariance is not really needed in all of those cases right now
> > AFAICS, or is it?
>
> Correct. This is just part of the patch to disable in active mode
> (particularly in HWP and performance mode).
>
> But this patch is 2 years old. The folks who wanted this, disable
> intel-pstate and use userspace governor with acpi-cpufreq. So may be
> better to address those cases too.
I disagree with "scale invariance is needed only by the schedutil governor";
the two other users are the CPU's estimated utilization in the wakeup path,
via cpu_util_without(), as well as the load-balance path, via cpu_util() which
is used by update_sg_lb_stats().
Also remember that scale invariance is applied to both PELT signals util_avg
and load_avg; schedutil uses the former but not the latter.
I understand Srinivas patch to disable MSR accesses during the tick as a
band-aid solution to address a specific use case he cares about, but I don't
think that extending this approach to any non-schedutil governor is a good
idea -- you'd be killing load balancing in the process.
Giovanni
Powered by blists - more mailing lists