[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6b5cde14-58b3-045d-9413-223e66b87bf0@st.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 07:52:57 +0000
From: Benjamin GAIGNARD <benjamin.gaignard@...com>
To: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
CC: "viresh.kumar@...aro.org" <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Hugues FRUCHET <hugues.fruchet@...com>,
"mchehab@...nel.org" <mchehab@...nel.org>,
"mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com" <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
Alexandre TORGUE <alexandre.torgue@...com>,
"pavel@....cz" <pavel@....cz>,
"len.brown@...el.com" <len.brown@...el.com>,
"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-media@...r.kernel.org" <linux-media@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com"
<linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/3] Introduce cpufreq minimum load QoS
On 4/29/20 6:12 PM, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> On 29/04/2020 16:57, Benjamin GAIGNARD wrote:
>>
>> On 4/29/20 5:50 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> On Friday, April 24, 2020 1:40:55 PM CEST Benjamin Gaignard wrote:
>>>> When start streaming from the sensor the CPU load could remain very low
>>>> because almost all the capture pipeline is done in hardware (i.e. without
>>>> using the CPU) and let believe to cpufreq governor that it could use lower
>>>> frequencies. If the governor decides to use a too low frequency that
>>>> becomes a problem when we need to acknowledge the interrupt during the
>>>> blanking time.
>>>> The delay to ack the interrupt and perform all the other actions before
>>>> the next frame is very short and doesn't allow to the cpufreq governor to
>>>> provide the required burst of power. That led to drop the half of the frames.
>>>>
>>>> To avoid this problem, DCMI driver informs the cpufreq governors by adding
>>>> a cpufreq minimum load QoS resquest.
>>> This seems to be addressing a use case that can be addressed with the help of
>>> utilization clamps with less power overhead.
>> Do mean clamping the policy frequencies ? I may have miss the API to do
>> that...
> IIUC Rafael is referring to uclamp, i.e. scheduler utilization clamping, see:
>
> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/admin-guide/cgroup-v2.html#cpu
>
> The above describes the cgroup interface, note that you can also set clamps
> per task (via sched_setattr()).
>
> One thing that comes to mind however is that schedutil only "sees" the clamps
> of runnable tasks, and from reading your changelog you may not have moments
> without any (i.e. gears are grinding in HW). You'd have to try boosting
> (setting a high uclamp.min) whatever tasks you have on the software side and
> see how it all behaves.
Relying on userland side means that various applications need to be aware
of this specific hardware case and fix it. I was hoping to find a
solution in side the kernel
to not impact the software side.
>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>>
>>>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists