Messages in this thread | | | From | Joel Fernandes <> | Date | Mon, 24 Jul 2017 11:37:58 -0700 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v7 1/2] cpufreq: schedutil: Make iowait boost more energy efficient |
| |
On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 1:57 AM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote: > On 23-07-17, 08:54, Joel Fernandes wrote: >> Currently the iowait_boost feature in schedutil makes the frequency go to max >> on iowait wakeups. This feature was added to handle a case that Peter >> described where the throughput of operations involving continuous I/O requests >> [1] is reduced due to running at a lower frequency, however the lower >> throughput itself causes utilization to be low and hence causing frequency to >> be low hence its "stuck". >> >> Instead of going to max, its also possible to achieve the same effect by >> ramping up to max if there are repeated in_iowait wakeups happening. This patch >> is an attempt to do that. We start from a lower frequency (policy->min) >> and double the boost for every consecutive iowait update until we reach the >> maximum iowait boost frequency (iowait_boost_max). >> >> I ran a synthetic test (continuous O_DIRECT writes in a loop) on an x86 machine >> with intel_pstate in passive mode using schedutil. In this test the iowait_boost >> value ramped from 800MHz to 4GHz in 60ms. The patch achieves the desired improved >> throughput as the existing behavior. >> >> [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9735885/ >> >> Cc: Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com> >> Cc: Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org> >> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> >> Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> >> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com> >> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> >> Suggested-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> >> Suggested-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> >> Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com> >> --- >> kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ >> 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > You Send V7 [1-2]/2 twice, Are they different ?
No they are the same. Rafael suggested reposting it with linux-pm in CC I just resent it.
> > For both the patches: > > Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Thanks!
-Joel
| |