Date:   Mon, 10 Oct 2022 14:05:58 +0100
From:   Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>
To:     Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rafael@...nel.org,
        linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, Dietmar.Eggemann@....com,
        peterz@...radead.org,
        "daniel.lezcano@...aro.org" <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] cpufreq: Update CPU capacity reduction in
 store_scaling_max_freq()



On 10/10/22 13:21, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 at 12:49, Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> +CC Daniel
>>
>> On 10/10/22 11:22, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>> On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 at 12:12, Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 10/10/22 10:32, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 at 11:30, Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/10/22 10:15, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 at 11:02, Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 10/10/22 06:39, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Would be good to always CC Scheduler maintainers for such a patch.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Agree, I'll do that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 30-09-22, 10:48, Lukasz Luba wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> When the new max frequency value is stored, the task scheduler must
>>>>>>>>>> know about it. The scheduler uses the CPUs capacity information in the
>>>>>>>>>> task placement. Use the existing mechanism which provides information
>>>>>>>>>> about reduced CPU capacity to the scheduler due to thermal capping.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>
>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>>       drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 18 +++++++++++++++++-
>>>>>>>>>>       1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>>>>>>>>>> index 1f8b93f42c76..205d9ea9c023 100644
>>>>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
>>>>>>>>>> @@ -27,6 +27,7 @@
>>>>>>>>>>       #include <linux/slab.h>
>>>>>>>>>>       #include <linux/suspend.h>
>>>>>>>>>>       #include <linux/syscore_ops.h>
>>>>>>>>>> +#include <linux/thermal.h>
>>>>>>>>>>       #include <linux/tick.h>
>>>>>>>>>>       #include <linux/units.h>
>>>>>>>>>>       #include <trace/events/power.h>
>>>>>>>>>> @@ -718,6 +719,8 @@ static ssize_t show_scaling_cur_freq(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, char *buf)
>>>>>>>>>>       static ssize_t store_scaling_max_freq
>>>>>>>>>>       (struct cpufreq_policy *policy, const char *buf, size_t count)
>>>>>>>>>>       {
>>>>>>>>>> +    unsigned int frequency;
>>>>>>>>>> +    struct cpumask *cpus;
>>>>>>>>>>          unsigned long val;
>>>>>>>>>>          int ret;
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> @@ -726,7 +729,20 @@ static ssize_t store_scaling_max_freq
>>>>>>>>>>                  return -EINVAL;
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>          ret = freq_qos_update_request(policy->max_freq_req, val);
>>>>>>>>>> -    return ret >= 0 ? count : ret;
>>>>>>>>>> +    if (ret >= 0) {
>>>>>>>>>> +            /*
>>>>>>>>>> +             * Make sure that the task scheduler sees these CPUs
>>>>>>>>>> +             * capacity reduction. Use the thermal pressure mechanism
>>>>>>>>>> +             * to propagate this information to the scheduler.
>>>>>>>>>> +             */
>>>>>>>>>> +            cpus = policy->related_cpus;
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No need of this, just use related_cpus directly.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> +            frequency = __resolve_freq(policy, val, CPUFREQ_RELATION_HE);
>>>>>>>>>> +            arch_update_thermal_pressure(cpus, frequency);
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I wonder if using the thermal-pressure API here is the right thing to
>>>>>>>>> do. It is a change coming from User, which may or may not be
>>>>>>>>> thermal-related.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, I thought the same. Thermal-pressure name might be not the
>>>>>>>> best for covering this use case. I have been thinking about this
>>>>>>>> thermal pressure mechanism for a while, since there are other
>>>>>>>> use cases like PowerCap DTPM which also reduces CPU capacity
>>>>>>>> because of power policy from user-space. We don't notify
>>>>>>>> the scheduler about it. There might be also an issue with virtual
>>>>>>>> guest OS and how that kernel 'sees' the capacity of CPUs.
>>>>>>>> We might try to use this 'thermal-pressure' in the guest kernel
>>>>>>>> to notify about available CPU capacity (just a proposal, not
>>>>>>>> even an RFC, since we are missing requirements, but issues where
>>>>>>>> discussed on LPC 2022 on ChromeOS+Android_guest)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The User space setting scaling_max_freq is a long scale event and it
>>>>>>> should be considered as a new running environnement instead of a
>>>>>>> transient event. I would suggest updating the EM is and capacity orig
>>>>>>> of the system in this case. Similarly, we rebuild sched_domain with a
>>>>>>> cpu hotplug. scaling_max_freq interface should not be used to do any
>>>>>>> kind of dynamic scaling.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I tend to agree, but the EM capacity would be only used in part of EAS
>>>>>> code. The whole fair.c view to the capacity_of() (RT + DL + irq +
>>>>>> thermal_pressure) would be still wrong in other parts, e.g.
>>>>>> select_idle_sibling() and load balance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When we get this powerhint we might be already in overutilied state
>>>>>> so EAS is disabled. IMO other mechanisms in the task scheduler
>>>>>> should be also aware of that capacity reduction.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's why I also mentioned the capacity_orig
>>>>
>>>> Well, I think this is a bit more complex. Thermal framework governor
>>>> reduces the perf IDs from top in the freq asc table and keeps that
>>>> in the statistics in sysfs. It also updates the thermal pressure signal.
>>>> When we rebuild the capacity of CPUs and make the capacity_orig smaller,
>>>> the capacity_of would still have the thermal framework reduced capacity
>>>> in there. We would end up with too small CPU capacity due to this
>>>> subtraction in capacity_of.
>>>
>>> That's why using user space interface should not be used to do dynamic scaling.
>>> I still think that user space interface is not the right interface
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ideally, I would see a mechanism which is aware of this performance
>>>> reduction reason:
>>>> 1. thermal capping
>>>> 2. power capping (from DTPM)
>>>> 3. max freq reduction by user space
>>>
>>> Yes for thermal and power capping  but no for user space
>>>
>>>>
>>>> That common place would figure and maintain the context for the
>>>> requested capacity reduction.
>>>>
>>>> BTW, those Android user space max freq requests are not that long,
>>>> mostly due to camera capturing (you can see a few in this file,
>>>> e.g. [1]).
>>>
>>> Why are they doing this ?
>>> This doesn't seem to be the correct interface to use. It seems to do
>>> some power budget and they should use the right interface for this
>>
>> Yes, I agree. I have sent explanation with this to Peter's emails.
>> Daniel tries to give them a better interface: DTPM, but also would
>> suffer the same issue of capacity reduction for this short time.
> 
> The comments in this thread are only about using the userspace
> interface scale_max_freq to dynamically scale max freq and then to try
> to report these changes in the thermal_pressure, which is the purpose
> of this patch.

Fair enough. I think we all see those potential issues but from
different angle, which is good for progress. We also bring different
experience. This patch appeared to be useful for sharing those views and
the issue.

> 
> As said at LPC, I'm fine to rename thermal_pressure for something more
> generic but this is not the purpose of this patch. This patch is about
> connecting userspace scale_max_freq to thermal_pressure and it's not
> the right things to do

Sounds good, something more generic would be great to have.

I will start a discussion in a new thread that topic then.

Thanks for sharing your opinion!

Powered by blists - more mailing lists