Message-ID: <CAB8ipk-VuD2oMDaV6B6i-eoKE+JZ0FpsUZAdT0R5S3to07JkFw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 25 Jul 2023 10:21:26 +0800
From:   Xuewen Yan <xuewen.yan94@...il.com>
To:     Qais Yousef <qyousef@...alina.io>
Cc:     Xuewen Yan <xuewen.yan@...soc.com>, rafael@...nel.org,
        viresh.kumar@...aro.org, mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org,
        vincent.guittot@...aro.org, dietmar.eggemann@....com,
        rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com, mgorman@...e.de,
        bristot@...hat.com, vschneid@...hat.com, guohua.yan@...soc.com,
        linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: schedutil: next_freq need update when
 cpufreq_limits changed

On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 11:53 PM Qais Yousef <qyousef@...alina.io> wrote:
>
> On 07/24/23 11:36, Xuewen Yan wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 22, 2023 at 7:02 AM Qais Yousef <qyousef@...alina.io> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 07/19/23 21:05, Xuewen Yan wrote:
> > > > When cpufreq's policy is single, there is a scenario that will
> > > > cause sg_policy's next_freq to be unable to update.
> > > >
> > > > When the cpu's util is always max, the cpufreq will be max,
> > > > and then if we change the policy's scaling_max_freq to be a
> > > > lower freq, indeed, the sg_policy's next_freq need change to
> > > > be the lower freq, however, because the cpu_is_busy, the next_freq
> > > > would keep the max_freq.
> > > >
> > > > For example:
> > > > The cpu7 is single cpu:
> > > >
> > > > unisoc:/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq/policy7 # while true;do done&
> > > > [1] 4737
> > > > unisoc:/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq/policy7 # taskset -p 80 4737
> > > > pid 4737's current affinity mask: ff
> > > > pid 4737's new affinity mask: 80
> > > > unisoc:/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq/policy7 # cat scaling_max_freq
> > > > 2301000
> > > > unisoc:/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq/policy7 # cat scaling_cur_freq
> > > > 2301000
> > > > unisoc:/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq/policy7 # echo 2171000 > scaling_max_freq
> > > > unisoc:/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq/policy7 # cat scaling_max_freq
> > > > 2171000
> > > >
> > > > At this time, the sg_policy's next_freq would keep 2301000.
> > > >
> > > > To prevent the case happen, add the judgment of the need_freq_update flag.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Xuewen Yan <xuewen.yan@...soc.com>
> > > > Co-developed-by: Guohua Yan <guohua.yan@...soc.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Guohua Yan <guohua.yan@...soc.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c | 3 ++-
> > > >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> > > > index 4492608b7d7f..458d359f5991 100644
> > > > --- a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> > > > +++ b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> > > > @@ -350,7 +350,8 @@ static void sugov_update_single_freq(struct update_util_data *hook, u64 time,
> > > >        * Except when the rq is capped by uclamp_max.
> > > >        */
> > > >       if (!uclamp_rq_is_capped(cpu_rq(sg_cpu->cpu)) &&
> > > > -         sugov_cpu_is_busy(sg_cpu) && next_f < sg_policy->next_freq) {
> > > > +         sugov_cpu_is_busy(sg_cpu) && next_f < sg_policy->next_freq &&
> > > > +         !sg_policy->need_freq_update) {
> > >
> > > What about sugov_update_single_perf()? It seems to have the same problem, no?
> >
> > There is no problem in sugov_update_single_perf, because the next_freq
> > is updated by drivers, maybe the next_freq is not used when using
> > sugov_update_single_perf..
>
> Ah I see; we just use prev_util but the request will go through and the driver
> should observe the new limit regardless of what util value we pass to it. Got
> ya.
>
> >
> > But  for the last_freq_update_time, I think there are some problems
> > when using sugov_update_single_perf:
> > Now, there is no judgment condition for the update of the
> > last_freq_update_time. That means the last_freq_update_time is always
> > updated in sugov_update_single_perf.
> > And in sugov_should_update_freq: it would judge the
> > freq_update_delay_ns. As a result, If we use the
> > sugov_update_single_perf, the cpu frequency would only be periodically
> > updated according to freq_update_delay_ns.
> > Maybe we should judge the cpufreq_driver_adjust_perf's return value,
> > if the freq is not updated, the last_freq_update_time also does not
> > have to update.
> >
> > Just like:
> > ---
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> > index 458d359f5991..10f18b054f01 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> > @@ -381,6 +381,7 @@ static void sugov_update_single_perf(struct
> > update_util_data *hook, u64 time,
> >         struct sugov_cpu *sg_cpu = container_of(hook, struct
> > sugov_cpu, update_util);
> >         unsigned long prev_util = sg_cpu->util;
> >         unsigned long max_cap;
> > +       bool freq_updated;
> >
> >         /*
> >          * Fall back to the "frequency" path if frequency invariance is not
> > @@ -407,10 +408,11 @@ static void sugov_update_single_perf(struct
> > update_util_data *hook, u64 time,
> >             sugov_cpu_is_busy(sg_cpu) && sg_cpu->util < prev_util)
> >                 sg_cpu->util = prev_util;
> >
> > -       cpufreq_driver_adjust_perf(sg_cpu->cpu, map_util_perf(sg_cpu->bw_dl),
> > +       freq_updated = cpufreq_driver_adjust_perf(sg_cpu->cpu,
> > map_util_perf(sg_cpu->bw_dl),
> >                                    map_util_perf(sg_cpu->util), max_cap);
> >
> > -       sg_cpu->sg_policy->last_freq_update_time = time;
> > +       if (freq_updated)
> > +               sg_cpu->sg_policy->last_freq_update_time = time;
> >  }
>
> Sound reasonable in principle, but it could lead to overhead; for example when
> the system is busy and maxed out, the last_freq_update_time will never be
> updated and will end up continuously calling to the driver to change frequency
> without any rate limit AFAICS. Which might not be an acceptable overhead,
> I don't know. Logically this is wasted cycles preventing the tasks from doing
> useful work. I think we need to look at such corner cases and treat them
> appropriately to not call the driver if we go with this approach.

Hi Qais,

I can understand what you mean, but I don't think this is a problem.
For the driver, the calculation of whether to update the frequency may
not be the main time-consuming, but the main time-consuming may be the
frequency conversion time of the hardware. If the hardware does not
need frequency conversion, the operation of calculating the frequency
takes a very short time.
If the operation of calling the driver frequently is unacceptable, can
prev_util be used?

---
diff --git a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
index 4492608b7d7f..3febfd032eee 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
@@ -379,7 +379,9 @@ static void sugov_update_single_perf(struct
update_util_data *hook, u64 time,
 {
        struct sugov_cpu *sg_cpu = container_of(hook, struct
sugov_cpu, update_util);
        unsigned long prev_util = sg_cpu->util;
+       unsigned long prev_bw_dl = sg_cpu->bw_dl;
        unsigned long max_cap;
+       bool freq_updated;

        /*
         * Fall back to the "frequency" path if frequency invariance is not
@@ -406,10 +408,14 @@ static void sugov_update_single_perf(struct
update_util_data *hook, u64 time,
            sugov_cpu_is_busy(sg_cpu) && sg_cpu->util < prev_util)
                sg_cpu->util = prev_util;

-       cpufreq_driver_adjust_perf(sg_cpu->cpu, map_util_perf(sg_cpu->bw_dl),
+       if (prev_util == sg_cpu->util && prev_bw_dl == sg_cpu->bw_dl)
+               return;
+
+       freq_updated = cpufreq_driver_adjust_perf(sg_cpu->cpu,
map_util_perf(sg_cpu->bw_dl),
                                   map_util_perf(sg_cpu->util), max_cap);

-       sg_cpu->sg_policy->last_freq_update_time = time;
+       if (freq_updated)
+               sg_cpu->sg_policy->last_freq_update_time = time;
 }

 static unsigned int sugov_next_freq_shared(struct sugov_cpu *sg_cpu, u64 time)


BR
---
xuewen
>
>
> Cheers
>
> --
> Qais Yousef
>
> >
> >
> > BR
> > Thanks!
> >
> > ---
> > xuewen
> > >
> > > LGTM otherwise.
> > >
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > >
> > > --
> > > Qais Yousef
> > >
> > > >               next_f = sg_policy->next_freq;
> > > >
> > > >               /* Restore cached freq as next_freq has changed */
> > > > --
> > > > 2.25.1
> > > >

Powered by blists - more mailing lists