lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Sep]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/1] cpufreq: pcc-cpufreq: Re-introduce deadband effect to reduce number of frequency changes
On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 10:32:01AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 01-09-16, 15:21, Andreas Herrmann wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 11:31:53AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>
> > > I am _really_ worried about such hacks in drivers to negate the effect of a
> > > patch, that was actually good.
> >
> > > Did you try to increase the sampling period of ondemand governor to see if that
> > > helps without this patch.
> >
> > With an older kernel I've modified transition_latency of the driver
> > which in turn is used to calculate the sampling rate.
>
> Naah, that isn't what I was looking for, sorry :(
>
> To explain it a bit more, this is what the patch did.
>
> Suppose, your platform supports frequencies: F1 (lowest), F2, F3, F4,
> F5, F6 and F7 (highest). The cpufreq governor (ondemand) based on a
> sampling rate and system load tries to change the frequency of the
> underlying hardware and select one of those.
>
> Before the original patch came in, F2 and F3 were never getting
> selected and the system was stuck in F1 for a long time. Which will
> decrease the performance for that period of time as we should have
> switched to a higher frequency really.
>
> With the new patch we switch to the frequency proportional to current
> load.
>
> The requests made from cpufreq-governor wouldn't have changed at all
> with that, but the number of freq changes at hardware level may
> actually change as we might be returning very quickly if the target
> freq evaluated to F1 in the earlier case.
>
> That may lead to switching to frequencies F2 and F3, which wasn't
> happening earlier.
>
> I don't think the result of that should be too bad.. We should have
> performed better almost everywhere.
>
> transition_latency is used only to initialize sampling rate, but that
> may get modified from userspace later on. Please tell us the value
> read from sysfs file sampling_rate present in:
>
> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq/policy0/ondemand/

/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq/ondemand contains following values:

ignore_nice_load : 0
io_is_busy : 1
min_sampling_rate : 10000
powersave_bias : 0
up_threshold : 95
sampling_rate : 10000
sampling_down_factor : 1

FYI, for each CPU direcories /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq/policy* look like:

scaling_cur_freq : 1200000
cpuinfo_max_freq : 2800000
cpuinfo_transition_latency : 0
cpuinfo_min_freq : 1200000
cpuinfo_cur_freq : 1204000
affected_cpus : 0
scaling_governor : ondemand
scaling_driver : pcc-cpufreq
scaling_max_freq : 2800000
related_cpus : 0
scaling_setspeed : <unsupported>
scaling_available_governors: ondemand performance
scaling_min_freq : 1200000

(which is for policy0 for CPU0)

> And try playing with that variable a bit to see if you can make things
> better or not.

Done that. Following the elapsed time with ondemand governor and
different values for sampling rate (for each of 4.8-rc5
vanilla/modified with my patch/commit 6393d6a reverted).

4.8-rc5 (vanilla)
sample_rate
10000 20000 30000 45000 60000 90000
jobs seconds % CPU seconds % CPU seconds % CPU seconds % CPU seconds % CPU seconds % CPU
2 283.47 203.00 273.79 204.00 276.08 204.00 276.99 204.00 281.80 203.60 291.00 203.00
4 146.92 399.20 140.98 399.80 141.55 399.80 140.91 400.00 142.91 400.00 146.49 399.80
8 81.66 770.00 77.44 769.20 76.81 769.20 73.74 769.20 73.17 767.20 72.75 767.00
16 54.31 1466.20 49.58 1458.40 48.37 1456.60 44.29 1447.80 42.89 1436.40 41.12 1416.80
32 36.71 2720.60 30.70 2672.80 29.22 2578.80 26.34 2563.20 25.57 2506.80 24.58 2457.80
64 13.99 3291.20 13.63 3295.40 13.55 3309.20 13.30 3354.60 13.66 3264.40 13.55 3288.60
120 14.84 3114.20 14.10 3215.00 14.57 3115.20 14.11 3209.80 14.17 3198.60 14.09 3220.80
------------------------------
4.8-rc5 re-intro deadband for pcc-cpufreq only (my patch)
sample_rate
10000 20000 30000 45000 60000 90000
jobs seconds % CPU seconds % CPU seconds % CPU seconds % CPU seconds % CPU seconds % CPU
2 270.88 192.00 270.87 192.80 270.65 192.00 274.08 192.00 277.97 192.80 289.85 193.00
4 140.23 379.20 138.94 379.80 138.20 378.80 138.99 379.20 140.81 379.60 145.83 380.40
8 76.15 738.20 73.86 733.60 71.58 734.20 70.43 730.40 70.32 730.60 71.14 728.20
16 47.39 1414.80 44.20 1395.60 43.02 1384.60 41.09 1368.00 40.37 1362.80 39.56 1351.20
32 32.78 2659.80 29.05 2531.80 27.18 2482.40 25.36 2471.60 24.55 2441.00 24.18 2365.80
64 13.34 3213.20 13.29 3204.60 13.38 3158.60 13.30 3162.40 13.57 3089.60 13.48 3125.20
120 13.89 3103.00 14.00 3047.40 13.87 3068.40 13.83 3077.80 13.93 3054.80 14.10 3033.60
------------------------------
4.8-rc5 reverted commit 6393d6a
sample_rate
10000 20000 30000 45000 60000 90000
jobs seconds % CPU seconds % CPU seconds % CPU seconds % CPU seconds % CPU seconds % CPU
2 250.94 205.00 256.26 205.00 261.29 205.00 268.92 205.00 275.60 204.80 288.64 204.00
4 127.20 401.20 129.63 401.80 131.80 402.00 135.41 401.20 138.88 401.20 144.96 401.00
8 64.24 767.60 64.18 769.60 64.49 770.20 65.69 766.00 66.38 768.60 68.64 767.40
16 37.02 1438.00 36.09 1432.20 36.10 1429.40 36.10 1424.60 36.61 1408.80 36.87 1405.60
32 24.73 2618.80 23.28 2533.80 23.00 2513.40 22.45 2526.00 22.92 2463.00 23.12 2422.20
64 12.62 3550.60 12.94 3439.60 12.95 3425.60 12.94 3421.80 13.29 3336.80 13.65 3257.80
120 13.30 3408.80 13.43 3346.40 13.44 3347.80 13.55 3322.60 13.76 3277.20 14.19 3192.40

> > I started with the value return as "nominal latency" for PCC. This
> > was 300000 ns on the test system and made things worse. I've tested
> > other values as well unitl I've found a local optimium at 45000ns but
> > performance was lower in comparison to when I've applied my hack.
>
> Can you try to use kernel tracer (ftrace) and see how the frequencies
> are getting changed and at what frequency.

I am currently looking into this ...

> We need to understand the problem better, as I am not 100% sure what's
> going on right now.

... to gather related data.

> > > Also, it is important to understand why is the performance going
> > > down, while the original commit should have made it better.
> >
> > My understanding is that the original commit was tested with certain
> > combinations of hardware and cpufreq-drivers and the claim was that
> > for those (two?) tested combinations performance increased and power
> > consumption was lower. So I am not so sure what to expect from all
> > other cpufreq-driver/hardware combinations.
>
> It was principally the right thing to do IMO. And I don't think any
> other hardware should get affected badly. At the max, the tuning needs
> to be made a bit better.
>
> > > Is it only about more transitions ?
> >
> > I think this is the main issue.
>
> Then it can be controlled with sampling rate from userspace.
>
> > In an older kernel version I activated/added debug output in
> > __cpufreq_driver_target(). Of course this creates a huge amount of
> > messages. But with original patch reverted it was like:
> >
> > [ 29.489677] cpufreq: target for CPU 0: 1760000 kHz (1200000 kHz), relation 2, requested 1760000 kHz
> > [ 29.570364] cpufreq: target for CPU 0: 1216000 kHz (1760000 kHz), relation 2, requested 1216000 kHz
> > [ 29.571055] cpufreq: target for CPU 1: 1200000 kHz (1148000 kHz), relation 0, requested 1200000 kHz
> > [ 29.571483] cpufreq: target for CPU 1: 1200000 kHz (1200000 kHz), relation 2, requested 1200000 kHz
> > [ 29.572042] cpufreq: target for CPU 2: 1200000 kHz (1064000 kHz), relation 0, requested 1200000 kHz
> > [ 29.572503] cpufreq: target for CPU 2: 1200000 kHz (1200000 kHz), relation 2, requested 1200000 kHz
>
> Your platform is a bit special as it uses ->target() callback and not
> ->target_index(). And so you can pretty much switch to any frequency.
>
> Can you please read value of all the sysfs files present in the
> governor directory? That would be helpful. Maybe we can play with some
> more files like: up_threshold to see what the results are.

For sysfs values see above. I've not yet played with up_threshold but
plan to do this as well.

> > a lot of stuff, but system could still handle it and booted to the
> > prompt.
> >
> > With the original patch applied the system was really flooded and
> > eventually became unresponsive:
> >
> > ** 459 printk messages dropped ** [ 29.838689] cpufreq: target for CPU 43: 1408000 kHz (2384000 kHz), relation 2, requested 1408000 kHz
> > ** 480 printk messages dropped ** [ 29.993849] cpufreq: target for CPU 54: 1200000 kHz (1248000 kHz), relation 2, requested 1200000 kHz
> > ** 413 printk messages dropped ** [ 30.113921] cpufreq: target for CPU 59: 2064000 kHz (1248000 kHz), relation 2, requested 2064000 kHz
> > ** 437 printk messages dropped ** [ 30.245846] cpufreq: target for CPU 21: 1296000 kHz (1296000 kHz), relation 2, requested 1296000 kHz
> > ** 435 printk messages dropped ** [ 30.397748] cpufreq: target for CPU 13: 1280000 kHz (2640000 kHz), relation 2, requested 1280000 kHz
> > ** 480 printk messages dropped ** [ 30.541846] cpufreq: target for CPU 58: 2112000 kHz (1632000 kHz), relation 2, requested 2112000 kHz
>
> This looks even more dangerous :)
>
> --
> viresh


Thanks,

Andreas

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-09-17 09:59    [W:0.074 / U:0.124 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site