linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] cpufreq: Add a cpufreq pressure feedback for the scheduler

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <2e8807b68133f4b3a72227122a9d9a05f3fbf9d8.camel@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 13 Dec 2023 16:41:04 -0800
From:   Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        catalin.marinas@....com, will@...nel.org, sudeep.holla@....com,
        rafael@...nel.org, viresh.kumar@...aro.org, agross@...nel.org,
        andersson@...nel.org, konrad.dybcio@...aro.org, mingo@...hat.com,
        peterz@...radead.org, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
        dietmar.eggemann@....com, rostedt@...dmis.org, bsegall@...gle.com,
        mgorman@...e.de, bristot@...hat.com, vschneid@...hat.com,
        lukasz.luba@....com, rui.zhang@...el.com, mhiramat@...nel.org,
        daniel.lezcano@...aro.org, amit.kachhap@...il.com,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] cpufreq: Add a cpufreq pressure feedback for the
 scheduler

On Tue, 2023-12-12 at 15:27 +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> Provide to the scheduler a feedback about the temporary max available
> capacity. Unlike arch_update_thermal_pressure, this doesn't need to be
> filtered as the pressure will happen for dozens ms or more.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
> ---
>  drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 48 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  include/linux/cpufreq.h   | 10 ++++++++
>  2 files changed, 58 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> index 44db4f59c4cc..7d5f71be8d29 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> @@ -2563,6 +2563,50 @@ int cpufreq_get_policy(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, unsigned int cpu)
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(cpufreq_get_policy);
>  
> +DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned long, cpufreq_pressure);
> +EXPORT_PER_CPU_SYMBOL_GPL(cpufreq_pressure);
> +
> +/**
> + * cpufreq_update_pressure() - Update cpufreq pressure for CPUs
> + * @cpus        : The related CPUs for which max capacity has been reduced
> + * @capped_freq : The maximum allowed frequency that CPUs can run at
> + *
> + * Update the value of cpufreq pressure for all @cpus in the mask. The
> + * cpumask should include all (online+offline) affected CPUs, to avoid
> + * operating on stale data when hot-plug is used for some CPUs. The
> + * @capped_freq reflects the currently allowed max CPUs frequency due to
> + * freq_qos capping. It might be also a boost frequency value, which is bigger
> + * than the internal 'capacity_freq_ref' max frequency. In such case the
> + * pressure value should simply be removed, since this is an indication that
> + * there is no capping. The @capped_freq must be provided in kHz.
> + */
> +static void cpufreq_update_pressure(const struct cpumask *cpus,
> +				      unsigned long capped_freq)
> +{
> +	unsigned long max_capacity, capacity, pressure;
> +	u32 max_freq;
> +	int cpu;
> +
> +	cpu = cpumask_first(cpus);
> +	max_capacity = arch_scale_cpu_capacity(cpu);
> +	max_freq = arch_scale_freq_ref(cpu);
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * Handle properly the boost frequencies, which should simply clean
> +	 * the thermal pressure value.
> +	 */
> +	if (max_freq <= capped_freq)
> +		capacity = max_capacity;
> +	else
> +		capacity = mult_frac(max_capacity, capped_freq, max_freq);
> +
> +	pressure = max_capacity - capacity;
> +
> +
> +	for_each_cpu(cpu, cpus)
> +		WRITE_ONCE(per_cpu(cpufreq_pressure, cpu), pressure);

Seems like the pressure value computed from the first CPU applies to all CPU.
Will this be valid for non-homogeneous CPUs that could have different
max_freq and max_capacity?

Tim