[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <96fdead6-9896-5695-6744-413300d424f5@arm.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2020 17:13:53 +0000
From: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
To: Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@....com>, catalin.marinas@....com,
will@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com, maz@...nel.org,
suzuki.poulose@....com, sudeep.holla@....com,
dietmar.eggemann@....com
Cc: peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...hat.com, ggherdovich@...e.cz,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 6/6] arm64: use activity monitors for frequency
invariance
Only commenting on the bits that should be there regardless of using the
workqueues or not;
On 18/12/2019 18:26, Ionela Voinescu wrote:
> +static void cpu_amu_fie_init_workfn(struct work_struct *work)
> +{
> + u64 core_cnt, const_cnt, ratio;
> + struct cpu_amu_work *amu_work;
> + int cpu = smp_processor_id();
> +
> + if (!cpu_has_amu_feat()) {
> + pr_debug("CPU%d: counters are not supported.\n", cpu);
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + core_cnt = read_sysreg_s(SYS_AMEVCNTR0_CORE_EL0);
> + const_cnt = read_sysreg_s(SYS_AMEVCNTR0_CONST_EL0);
> +
> + if (unlikely(!core_cnt || !const_cnt)) {
> + pr_err("CPU%d: cycle counters are not enabled.\n", cpu);
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + amu_work = container_of(work, struct cpu_amu_work, cpu_work);
> + if (unlikely(!(amu_work->cpuinfo_max_freq))) {
> + pr_err("CPU%d: invalid maximum frequency.\n", cpu);
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + /*
> + * Pre-compute the fixed ratio between the frequency of the
> + * constant counter and the maximum frequency of the CPU (hz).
I can't resist: s/hz/Hz/
> + */
> + ratio = (u64)arch_timer_get_rate() << (2 * SCHED_CAPACITY_SHIFT);
> + ratio = div64_u64(ratio, amu_work->cpuinfo_max_freq * 1000);
Nit: we're missing a comment somewhere that the unit of this is in kHz
(which explains the * 1000).
> + this_cpu_write(arch_max_freq_scale, (unsigned long)ratio);
> +
Okay so what we get in the tick is:
/\ core
--------
/\ const
And we want that to be SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE when running at max freq. IOW we
want to turn
max_freq
----------
const_freq
into SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE, so we can just multiply that by:
const_freq
---------- * SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE
max_freq
But what the ratio you are storing here is
const_freq
arch_max_freq_scale = ---------- * SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE²
max_freq
(because x << 2 * SCHED_CAPACITY_SHIFT == x << 20)
In topology_freq_scale_tick() you end up doing
/\ core arch_max_freq_scale
------- * --------------------
/\ const SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE
which gives us what we want (SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE at max freq).
Now, the reason why we multiply our ratio by the square of
SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE was not obvious to me, but you pointed me out that the
frequency of the arch timer can be *really* low compared to the max CPU freq.
For instance on h960:
[ 0.000000] arch_timer: cp15 timer(s) running at 1.92MHz (phys)
$ root@...sch-h960:~# cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq/policy4/cpuinfo_max_freq
2362000
So our ratio would be
1'920'000 * 1024
----------------
2'362'000'000
Which is ~0.83, so that becomes simply 0...
I had a brief look at the Arm ARM, for the arch timer it says it is
"typically in the range 1-50MHz", but then also gives an example with 20KHz
in a low-power mode.
If we take say 5GHz max CPU frequency, our lower bound for the arch timer
(with that SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE² trick) is about ~4.768KHz. It's not *too*
far from that 20KHz, but I'm not sure we would actually be executing stuff
in that low-power mode.
Long story short, we're probably fine, but it would nice to shove some of
the above into comments (especially the SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE² trick)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists