lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [May]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Revert "cpufreq: schedutil: Don't restrict kthread to related_cpus unnecessarily"
On 05/12/2018 10:19 PM, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On Tue, May 08, 2018 at 10:42:37AM +0100, Quentin Perret wrote:
>> On Tuesday 08 May 2018 at 11:09:57 (+0200), Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
>>> On 05/08/2018 10:22 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>>>> On 08-05-18, 08:33, Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
>>>>> This reverts commit e2cabe48c20efb174ce0c01190f8b9c5f3ea1d13.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lifting the restriction that the sugov kthread is bound to the
>>>>> policy->related_cpus for a system with a slow switching cpufreq driver,
>>>>> which is able to perform DVFS from any cpu (e.g. cpufreq-dt), is not
>>>>> only not beneficial it also harms Enery-Aware Scheduling (EAS) on
>>>>> systems with asymmetric cpu capacities (e.g. Arm big.LITTLE).
>>>>>
>>>>> The sugov kthread which does the update for the little cpus could
>>>>> potentially run on a big cpu. It could prevent that the big cluster goes
>>>>> into deeper idle states although all the tasks are running on the little
>>>>> cluster.
>>>>
>>>> I think the original patch did the right thing, but that doesn't suit
>>>> everybody as you explained.
>>>>
>>>> I wouldn't really revert the patch but fix my platform's cpufreq
>>>> driver to set dvfs_possible_from_any_cpu = false, so that other
>>>> platforms can still benefit from the original commit.
>>>
>>> This would make sure that the kthreads are bound to the correct set of cpus
>>> for platforms with those cpufreq drivers (cpufreq-dt (h960), scmi-cpufreq,
>>> scpi-cpufreq) but it will also change the logic (e.g.
>>> sugov_should_update_freq() -> cpufreq_can_do_remote_dvfs()).
>>>
>>> I'm still struggling to understand when a driver/platform should set
>>> dvfs_possible_from_any_cpu to true and what the actual benefit would be.
>>
>> I assume it might be beneficial to have the kthread moving around freely
>> in some cases, but since it is a SCHED_DEADLINE task now it can't really
>> migrate anywhere anyway. So I'm not sure either if this commits still makes
>> sense now. Or is there another use case for this ?
>
> The usecase I guess is, as Dietmar was saying, that it makes sense for
> kthread to update its own cluster and not disturb other clusters or random
> CPUs. I agree with this point.

I agree with Viresh. Also, why exactly did we make it deadline instead
of RT? Was RT not getting scheduled quick enough? Is it because Android
creates a lot of RT threads?

-Saravana


--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-05-17 21:10    [W:0.071 / U:24.220 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site