lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [May]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC/RFT] [PATCH 02/10] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Conditional frequency invariant accounting
On 18-May 13:29, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 11:57:42AM +0100, Patrick Bellasi wrote:
> > Thus, my simple (maybe dumb) questions are:
> > - why can't we just fold turbo boost frequency into the existing concepts?
> > - what are the limitations of such a "simple" approach?
>
> Perhaps... but does this not further complicate the whole capacity vs
> util thing we already have in say the misfit patches?

Not sure about that...

> And the util_fits_capacity() thing from the EAS ones.

In this case instead, if we can track somehow (not saying we can)
what is the currently available "transient maximum capacity"...
then a util_fits_capacity() should just look at that.

If the transient capacity is already folded into cpu_capacity, as it
is now for RT and IRQ pressure, then likely we don't have to change
anything.

> The thing is, we either need to dynamically scale the util or the
> capacity or both. I think for Thermal there are patches out there that
> drop the capacity.

Not sure... but I would feel more comfortable by something which caps
the maximum capacity. Meaning, eventually you can fill up the maximum
possible capacity only "up to" a given value, because of thermal or other
reasons most of the scheduler maybe doesn't even have to know why?

> But we'd then have to do the same for turbo/vector and all the other
> stuff as well. Otherwise we risk things like running at low U with 0%
> idle and not triggering the tipping point between eas and regular
> balancing.

Interacting with the tipping point and/or OPP changes is indeed an
interesting side of the problem I was not considering so far...

But again, the tipping point could not be defined as a delta
with respect to the "transient maximum capacity" ?

> So either way around we need to know the 'true' max, either to fudge
> util or to fudge capacity.

Right, but what I see from a concepts standpoint is something like:

+--+--+ cpu_capacity_orig (CONSTANT at boot time)
| | |
| | | HW generated constraints
| v |
+-----+ cpu_capacity_max (depending on thermal/turbo boost)
| | |
| | | SW generated constraints
| v |
+-----+ cpu_capacity (depending on RT/IRQ pressure)
| | |
| | | tipping point delta
+--v--+
| | Energy Aware mode available capacity
+-----+

Where all the wkp/lb heuristics are updated to properly consider the
cpu_capacity_max metrics whenever it comes to know what is the max
speed we can reach now on a CPU.

> And I'm not sure we can know in some of these cases :/

Right, this schema will eventually work only under the hypothesis that
"somehow" we can update cpu_capacity_max from HW events.

Not entirely sure that's possible and/or at which time granularity on
all different platforms.

> And while Vincent's patches might have been inspired by another problem,
> they do have the effect of always allowing util to go to 1, which is
> nice for this.

Sure, that's a nice point, but still I have the feeling that always
reaching u=1 can defeat other interesting properties of a task,
For example, comparing task requirements in different CPUs and/or at
different times, which plays a big role for energy aware task
placement decisions.

--
#include <best/regards.h>

Patrick Bellasi

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-05-18 15:34    [W:0.149 / U:0.128 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site