lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Feb]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH v4 0/6] sched/cpufreq: Make schedutil energy aware
On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 06:14:24PM +0000, Douglas Raillard wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> Since the v3 was posted a while ago, here is a short recap of the hanging
> comments:
>
> * The boost margin was relative, but we came to the conclusion it would make
> more sense to make it absolute (done in that v4).

As per (patch #1):

+ max_cost = pd->table[pd->nr_cap_states - 1].cost;
+ cost_margin = (cost_margin * max_cost) / EM_COST_MARGIN_SCALE;

So we'll allow the boost to double energy consumption (or rather, since
you cannot go above the max OPP, we're allowed that).

> * The main remaining blur point was why defining boost=(util - util_est) makes
> sense. The justification for that is that we use PELT-shaped signal to drive
> the frequency, so using a PELT-shaped signal for the boost makes sense for the
> same reasons.

As per (patch #4):

+ unsigned long boost = 0;

+ if (util_est_enqueued == sg_cpu->util_est_enqueued &&
+ util_avg >= sg_cpu->util_avg &&
+ util_avg > util_est_enqueued)
+ boost = util_avg - util_est_enqueued;

The result of that is not, strictly speaking, a PELT shaped signal.
Although when it is !0 the curves are similar, albeit offset.

> AFAIK there is no specific criteria to meet for frequency selection signal shape
> for anything else than periodic tasks (if we don't add other constraints on
> top), so (util - util_est)=(util - constant) seems as good as anything else.
> Especially since util is deemed to be a good fit in practice for frequency
> selection. Let me know if I missed anything on that front.


Given:

sugov_get_util() <- cpu_util_cfs() <- UTIL_EST ? util_est.enqueued : util_avg.

our next_f becomes:

next_f = 1.25 * util_est * max_freq / max;

so our min_freq in em_pd_get_higher_freq() will already be compensated
for the offset.

So even when:

boost = util_avg - util_est

is small, despite util_avg being huge (~1024), due to large util_est,
we'll still get an effective boost to max_cost ASSUMING cs[].cost and
cost_margin have the same curve.

They have not.

assuming cs[].cost ~ f^3, and given our cost_margin ~ f, that leaves a
factor f^2 on the table.

So the higher the min_freq, the less effective the boost.

Maybe it all works out in practise, but I'm missing a big picture
description of it all somewhere.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-02-10 14:22    [W:0.154 / U:2.044 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site