[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHLCerNoPW4DSD5-j=CFQ7K9Pn_YzSAz1qKx7n6=_pvCXdzfFg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2019 16:24:17 +0530
From: Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@...durent.com>
To: Thara Gopinath <thara.gopinath@...aro.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, ionela.voinescu@....com,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@...il.com>, qperret@...gle.com,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Amit Daniel Kachhap <amit.kachhap@...il.com>,
Javi Merino <javi.merino@...nel.org>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [Patch v5 0/6] Introduce Thermal Pressure
On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 12:20 AM Thara Gopinath
<thara.gopinath@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> Thermal governors can respond to an overheat event of a cpu by
> capping the cpu's maximum possible frequency. This in turn
> means that the maximum available compute capacity of the
> cpu is restricted. But today in the kernel, task scheduler is
> not notified of capping of maximum frequency of a cpu.
> In other words, scheduler is unaware of maximum capacity
> restrictions placed on a cpu due to thermal activity.
> This patch series attempts to address this issue.
> The benefits identified are better task placement among available
> cpus in event of overheating which in turn leads to better
> performance numbers.
>
> The reduction in the maximum possible capacity of a cpu due to a
> thermal event can be considered as thermal pressure. Instantaneous
> thermal pressure is hard to record and can sometime be erroneous
> as there can be mismatch between the actual capping of capacity
> and scheduler recording it. Thus solution is to have a weighted
> average per cpu value for thermal pressure over time.
> The weight reflects the amount of time the cpu has spent at a
> capped maximum frequency. Since thermal pressure is recorded as
> an average, it must be decayed periodically. Exisiting algorithm
> in the kernel scheduler pelt framework is re-used to calculate
> the weighted average. This patch series also defines a sysctl
> inerface to allow for a configurable decay period.
>
> Regarding testing, basic build, boot and sanity testing have been
> performed on db845c platform with debian file system.
> Further, dhrystone and hackbench tests have been
> run with the thermal pressure algorithm. During testing, due to
> constraints of step wise governor in dealing with big little systems,
What contraints?
> trip point 0 temperature was made assymetric between cpus in little
> cluster and big cluster; the idea being that
> big core will heat up and cpu cooling device will throttle the
> frequency of the big cores faster, there by limiting the maximum available
> capacity and the scheduler will spread out tasks to little cores as well.
Can you share the hack to get this behaviour as well so I can try to
reproduce on 845c?
> Test Results
>
> Hackbench: 1 group , 30000 loops, 10 runs
> Result SD
> (Secs) (% of mean)
> No Thermal Pressure 14.03 2.69%
> Thermal Pressure PELT Algo. Decay : 32 ms 13.29 0.56%
> Thermal Pressure PELT Algo. Decay : 64 ms 12.57 1.56%
> Thermal Pressure PELT Algo. Decay : 128 ms 12.71 1.04%
> Thermal Pressure PELT Algo. Decay : 256 ms 12.29 1.42%
> Thermal Pressure PELT Algo. Decay : 512 ms 12.42 1.15%
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists