lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Nov]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 0/3] CPUFreq: Add support for cpu performance dependencies
Hi guys,

On Thursday 05 Nov 2020 at 15:25:53 (+0100), Vincent Guittot wrote:
[..]
> > > - Because of hardware co-ordination of otherwise co-ordinated CPUs,
> > > few things break. Thermal and EAS are some of the examples and so
> > > you are trying to fix them here by proving them the missing
> > > information again.
> >
> > Correct. And for this I have proposed two ways.
> >
> > >
> > > - One other thing that breaks with this is freq-invariance in the
> > > scheduler, as the scheduler won't see the real frequencies the
> > > various CPUs are running at. Most of the hardware we have today
> > > doesn't have counters, like AMUs, not sure if all future ones based
> > > on SCMI will have that too, so how are they gong to be fixed ?
> > >
> >
> > Correct. freq-invariance without counters is trying to do its best based on the
> > information it has available. It definitely relies on the knowledge of the v/f
> > domains to work at its best so I think in the case of per-cpu it will follow the
> > same approach as others being affected (EAS, thermal).
>
> As frequency invariance has same problem as EAS and Thermal it would
> be good to see the solution as part of this proposal like EAS and
> Thermal
>

I think I was waiting for a consensus on patch 3/3, although I believe the
discussion at [1] tended towards option 2: "each driver to store
internally the performance dependencies and let the driver directly
provide the correct cpumask for any consumer."
The alternative was option 1: "add a new dependent_cpus cpumaks in
cpufreq_policy", as Nicola mentioned in the commit message for 3/3.

If the choice is clear, I'm happy to take the FIE fixes in a separate
set.

Thanks,
Ionela.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20200924095347.32148-3-nicola.mazzucato@arm.com/

> >
> > > And if we even have to fix this (freq invariance), what's hardware
> > > coordination giving us that makes all this worth it ?
> >
> > I suppose this is more a generic question for all the platforms running with h/w
> > coordination, but for our case is that the f/w will take care of the performance
> > optimizations for us :)
> >
> > >
> > > Sorry about the long list :)
> >
> > No problem at all. Thank you for your time on this and I hope I have made bits
> > clearer.
> >
> > Nicola
> >
> > >

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-11-05 16:46    [W:0.053 / U:4.948 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site