Message-ID: <CAKfTPtA8Ljy4NBqjw8Wj4pEFc-OCR55QPuwh+5GgrHN6u+ugsg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 8 Sep 2023 16:30:31 +0200
From:   Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
To:     Qais Yousef <qyousef@...alina.io>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] sched: cpufreq: Fix apply_dvfs_headroom() escaping
 uclamp constraints

On Thu, 7 Sept 2023 at 23:55, Qais Yousef <qyousef@...alina.io> wrote:
>
> On 09/07/23 15:47, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > On Tue, 29 Aug 2023 at 18:37, Qais Yousef <qyousef@...alina.io> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 08/29/23 16:35, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 20 Aug 2023 at 23:08, Qais Yousef <qyousef@...alina.io> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > DVFS headroom is applied after we calculate the effective_cpu_util()
> > > > > which is where we honour uclamp constraints. It makes more sense to
> > > > > apply the headroom there once and let all users naturally get the right
> > > > > thing without having to sprinkle the call around in various places.
> > > >
> > > > You have to take care of not mixing scheduler and cpufreq constraint and policy.
> > > >
> > > > uclamp is a scheduler feature to highlight that the utilization
> > > > requirement of a task can't go above a level.
> > >
> > > uclamp is a performance hint, which utilization is how we represent it
> > > internally. A task with uclamp of 800 is not the same as util being actually
> > > 800. In our previous discussions around util_fits_cpu() we had similar
> > > discussion on how the two can't be treated the same.
> > >
> > > Same with uclamp_min; if it is set to 1024 but there is a task with util say
> > > 100, this task shouldn't cause overutilized as its actual utilization actually
> > > fits, but it just asked to run at a higher performance point. The actual
> > > utilization has to be in the over utilized range. Unless uclamp_max forces it
> > > to fit of course.
> > >
> > > So uclamp_max sets a cap to the performance that the task is allowed to reach.
> > > And this translates into frequency selection and cpu selection (in case of HMP)
> > > by design.
> >
> > The dvfs head room is a sole property of cpufreq and the scheduler
> > doesn't care about it. Scheduler should provide some cpu utilization
> > hints. Then what cpufreq will do based on the utilization, the HW
> > constraint and the policy is out of scheduler scope.
> >
> > This headroom is there only because energy model wants to forecast
> > what will be the frequency that cpufreq will select later on but
> > scheduler doesn't care
> >
> > >
> > > I don't think we're mixing matters here. But the headroom should be applied to
> > > actual utilization, not uclamp. If the rq is capped to a specific performance
> > > level, we should honour this.
> > >
> > > We do the same with iowait boost where it is capped by uclamp_max. A task
> > > capped by uclamp_max shouldn't be the trigger of running at a frequency higher
> > > than this point. Otherwise we'd need to expose all these internal details to
> > > the user, which I think we all agree isn't something to consider at all.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > dvfs head room is a cpufreq decision to anticipate either hw
> > > > limitation and responsiveness problem or performance hints.
> > > >
> > > > they come from different sources and rational and this patch mixed
> > > > them which i'm not sure is a correct thing to do
> > >
> > > I don't think I'm mixing them up to be honest.
> > >
> > > The governor is driven by effective_cpu_util() to tell it what is the
> > > effective_cpu_util() when making frequency selection. This function takes into
> > > account all the factors that could impact frequency selection including all type
> > > of rq pressures (except thermal). I think it is appropriate to take headroom
> > > into account there and make sure we honour uclamp_max hint to cap the
> > > performance appropriately based on the effective uclamp_max value of the rq.
> > >
> > > For example if actually util was 640, then after the headroom it'd be 800. And
> > > if uclamp_max is 800, then this task will still get the 1.25 headroom. We are
> > > not changing this behavior.
> > >
> > > But if the task goes beyond that, then it'll stop at 800 because this what the
> > > request is all about. A headroom beyond this point is not required because the
> > > task (or rq to be more precise) is capped to this performance point and
> > > regardless how busy the cpu gets in terms of real utilization or headroom, it
> > > shouldn't go beyond this point. ie: if a task is a 1024 but uclamp_max of is
> > > 800 then it'll only get a performance equivalent to OPP@800 would give.
> > >
> > > If we don't do that uclamp_max range effectively is from 0-819 (based on
> > > current headroom setting of 1.25). Which is not what we want or what we're
> > > telling userspace. Userspace sees the whole system performance levels
> > > abstracted from 0 - 1024. As it should. The only effect they would observe and
> > > there's no way around it is that OPPs are discrete points. So in reality our
> > > 0-1024 is a staircase where a range of util values will map to the same OPP and
> > > then we'll get a jump. So the user can end up requesting for example 700 and
> > > 720 and not notice any difference because they both map to the same OPP.
> > > I don't think we can fix that - but maybe I should add it to the uclamp doc as
> > > a caveat when setting uclamp.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Before this fix running
> > > > >
> > > > >         uclampset -M 800 cat /dev/zero > /dev/null
> > > > >
> > > > > Will cause the test system to run at max freq of 2.8GHz. After the fix
> > > > > it runs at 2.2GHz instead which is the correct value that matches the
> > > > > capacity of 800.
> > > >
> > > > So a task with an utilization of 800 will run at higher freq than a
> > > > task clamped to 800 by uclamp ? Why should they run at different freq
> > > > for the same utilization ?
> > >
> > > Because uclamp sets an upper limit on the performance level the task should be
> > > able to achieve. Imagine a task is 1024 and capped to 800, it should not run at
> > > max frequency, right? What's the point of the uclamp_max hint if the headroom
> >
> > Who knows ? Here we try to predict the coming utilization of the cpu
> > and this prediction is only partial so cpufreq might want to keep some
> > headroom even if uclamp max is applied to a cfs rq. Anticipate
> > unpredictable irq stolen time
>
> I struggle to see why we need headroom after uclamp_max. But I think I'm
> starting to see what you're getting at. I think you'd like not to make
> assumption in the scheduler and hide this logic in the governor itself?

yes

>
> >
> > IMO, dvfs_headroom should never be visible in scheduler code. This is
> > the case now; it's only visible by cpufreq which is the "owner" and
> > energy model which tries to predict cpufreq behavior
>
> Okay.
>
> >
> > > will cause it to run at max anyway? We lost the meaning of the hint. And if
> > > this headroom changes in the future, people will start observing different
> > > behavior for existing uclamp_max settings on the same system because of this
> > > this rightfully hidden and unaccounted for factor.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Note that similar problem exist for uclamp_min. If util was 50, and
> > > > > uclamp_min is 100. Since we apply_dvfs_headroom() after apply uclamp
> > > > > constraints, we'll end up with util of 125 instead of 100. IOW, we get
> > > > > boosted twice, first time by uclamp_min, and second time by dvfs
> > > > > headroom.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Qais Yousef (Google) <qyousef@...alina.io>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  include/linux/energy_model.h     |  1 -
> > > > >  kernel/sched/core.c              | 11 ++++++++---
> > > > >  kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c |  5 ++---
> > > > >  3 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/energy_model.h b/include/linux/energy_model.h
> > > > > index 6ebde4e69e98..adec808b371a 100644
> > > > > --- a/include/linux/energy_model.h
> > > > > +++ b/include/linux/energy_model.h
> > > > > @@ -243,7 +243,6 @@ static inline unsigned long em_cpu_energy(struct em_perf_domain *pd,
> > > > >         scale_cpu = arch_scale_cpu_capacity(cpu);
> > > > >         ps = &pd->table[pd->nr_perf_states - 1];
> > > > >
> > > > > -       max_util = apply_dvfs_headroom(max_util);
> > > > >         max_util = min(max_util, allowed_cpu_cap);
> > > > >         freq = map_util_freq(max_util, ps->frequency, scale_cpu);
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/kernel/sched/core.c b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > > > > index efe3848978a0..441d433c83cd 100644
> > > > > --- a/kernel/sched/core.c
> > > > > +++ b/kernel/sched/core.c
> > > > > @@ -7439,8 +7439,10 @@ unsigned long effective_cpu_util(int cpu, unsigned long util_cfs,
> > > > >          * frequency will be gracefully reduced with the utilization decay.
> > > > >          */
> > > > >         util = util_cfs + cpu_util_rt(rq);
> > > > > -       if (type == FREQUENCY_UTIL)
> > > > > +       if (type == FREQUENCY_UTIL) {
> > > > > +               util = apply_dvfs_headroom(util);
> > > >
> > > > This is not the same as before because utilization has not being
> > > > scaled by irq steal time yet
> > >
> > > We do the scaling below, no?
> > >
> > > AFAICS, we had:
> > >
> > >         (util_cfs + util_rt + irq + ((max-irq)*(util_cfs + util_rt)/max)+ dl_bw) * scale
> >
> > I think it's only :
> >   ((util_cfs + util_rt) * (max -irq) / max + irq + dl_bw) * scale
> >
> > and it' s effectively similar
>
> +1
>
> >
> > >
> > > Using U = (util_cfs + util_rt) * scale
> > >
> > > we can write this after the multiplication
> > >
> > >         U + irq * scale + ((max-irq)*U/max) + dl_bw * scale
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >                 util = uclamp_rq_util_with(rq, util, p);
> > > > > +       }
> > > > >
> > > > >         dl_util = cpu_util_dl(rq);
> > > > >
> > > > > @@ -7471,9 +7473,12 @@ unsigned long effective_cpu_util(int cpu, unsigned long util_cfs,
> > > > >          *              max - irq
> > > > >          *   U' = irq + --------- * U
> > > > >          *                 max
> > > > > +        *
> > > > > +        * We only need to apply dvfs headroom to irq part since the util part
> > > > > +        * already had it applied.
> > > > >          */
> > > > >         util = scale_irq_capacity(util, irq, max);
> > > > > -       util += irq;
> > > > > +       util += type ==  FREQUENCY_UTIL ? apply_dvfs_headroom(irq) : irq;
> > > > >
> > > > >         /*
> > > > >          * Bandwidth required by DEADLINE must always be granted while, for
> > > > > @@ -7486,7 +7491,7 @@ unsigned long effective_cpu_util(int cpu, unsigned long util_cfs,
> > > > >          * an interface. So, we only do the latter for now.
> > > > >          */
> > > > >         if (type == FREQUENCY_UTIL)
> > > > > -               util += cpu_bw_dl(rq);
> > > > > +               util += apply_dvfs_headroom(cpu_bw_dl(rq));
> > > >
> > > > If we follow your reasoning with uclamp on the dl bandwidth, should we
> > > > not skip this as well ?
> > >
> > > I do remove this in patch 4. Can fold that one into this one if you like.
> > > I opted to keep the current behavior in this patch and remove these later in
> > > patch 4.
> > >
> > > I do think that both RT and DL shouldn't need DVFS headroom in general as they
> > > both 'disable' it by default.
> >
> > and the scheduler in general doesn't care about DVFS headroom.
> >
> > I don't think it's the right way to fix your problem of selecting the
> > right frequency on your platform. It would be better to get a proper
> > interface between EM and cpufreq like
> > cpufreq_give_me_freq_for_this_utilization_ctx.
>
> Hmm is the problem then that effective_cpu_util() was moved to scheduler and it
> should move back to schedutil and provide a proper interface to connect the two
> in abstracted way?

probably yes

>
> >
> > And  cpufreq needs 2 information:
> > - the utilization of the cpu
> > - the uclamp/performance/bandwidth hints on this cpu because the
> > uclamp_max hints are screwed up by irq scaling anyway.
> >
> > For example:
> >
> > irq = 256
> > util = 800 but uclamp=512
> >
> > If I follow your reasoning about the uclamp being a performance hint
> > and uclamp=512 means that we should not go above 512 just for cfs+rt,
>
> Yes. We already limit it to 512 now. With the change we'll limit it after the
> headroom is applied to them.
>
> > we should stay at 512 in this case because irq only needs 256 which is
> > below the 512 bandwidth. The utilization reported to cpufreq will be
>
> Hmm IIUC, no. irq pressure will be added on top as normal. It's just cfs+rt
> will be restricted by their uclamp settings _after_ the headroom is applied.

But then you mixed some utilization level (irq pressure)  which is
time related with some performance/bandwidth limitation which is freq
related. And I think that part of the reason why we can't agree on
where to put headroom and how to take into account uclamp

>
> > above 512 whatever the current (720)  formula or your proposal (608).
> > In the case of uclamp, it should be applied after having been scaled
> > by irq time.
>
> I lost you a bit here. I'm not sure how you reached the 720 and 608 numbers.

My bad, I finally decided to use an irq pressure of 128 in my
calculation but forgot to change the value in my email

>
> So the way I'm proposing it here
>
>         util = cfs + rt + dvfs_headroom(cfs+rt) = 800 + 0.25 * 800 = 1000
>         util = uclamp_rq_util_with(rq, util, NULL) = 512
>         util = scale_rq_capacity(512, 256, 1024) = 0.75 * 512 = 384
>         util += dvfs_headroom(irq) = 384 + 256 + 0.25 * 256 = 704
>         util += dvfs_headroom(dl_bw) = 704
>
> >
> > So we should have reported utilization of 720 with a bandwidth
> > requirement of 512 and then cpufreq can applies its headroom if needed
>
> The key part I'm changing is this
>
>         util = cfs + rt + dvfs_headroom(cfs+rt) = 800 + 0.25 * 800 = 1000
>         util = uclamp_rq_util_with(rq, util, NULL) = 512
>
> Before we had (assume irq, rt and dl are 0 for simplicity and a single task is
> running)
>
>         util = cfs = 800
>         util = uclamp_rq_util_with(rq, util, NULL) = 512
>         util = dvfs_headroom(util) = 512 * 0.25 * 512 = 640
>
> So we are running higher than we are allowed to. So applying the headroom
> after taking uclamp constraints into account is the problem.

But I think it's not correct because you mixed some utilization level
with some performance requirement. IIRC, you said that the
uclamp/min/max must not be seen as an utilization level but a
performance hint. In such case, you can't add it to some other
utilization because it defeats its original purpose

>
> IIUC and your concerns are about how scheduler and schedutil are interacting
> loses some abstraction, then yeah this makes sense and can refactor code to
> better abstract the two and keep them decoupled.
>
> But if you think the order the headroom is applied should be the way it is,
> then this doesn't fix the problem.
>
> A good use case to consider is a single task running at 1024. If I want to
> limit it to 80% using uclamp_max, how can this be enforced? With current code,
> the task will continue to run at 1024; which is the problem.

Single case is the easy part

>
> Running at 640 instead of 512 is still a problem too as this could be 1 or
> 2 OPP higher than what we want to allow; and there could be significant power
> difference between those OPPs.

That's my point.

Your proposal tries to fix the simple case of 1 task with a uclamp_max
but If we want to move in this direction, we should fix all cases.

I probably need to put my idea in real code to see what it means but
we should provide 2 value to cpufreq: an utilization level and a
performance hint which would max aggregate the various performance
hints that we have

>
>
> Thanks!

>
> --
> Qais Yousef

Powered by blists - more mailing lists