[lkml]   [2018]   [Oct]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 0/7] Introduce thermal pressure
On 10/16/2018 03:33 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Thara Gopinath <> wrote:
>>>> Regarding testing, basic build, boot and sanity testing have been
>>>> performed on hikey960 mainline kernel with debian file system.
>>>> Further aobench (An occlusion renderer for benchmarking realworld
>>>> floating point performance) showed the following results on hikey960
>>>> with debain.
>>>> Result Standard Standard
>>>> (Time secs) Error Deviation
>>>> Hikey 960 - no thermal pressure applied 138.67 6.52 11.52%
>>>> Hikey 960 - thermal pressure applied 122.37 5.78 11.57%
>>> Wow, +13% speedup, impressive! We definitely want this outcome.
>>> I'm wondering what happens if we do not track and decay the thermal
>>> load at all at the PELT level, but instantaneously decrease/increase
>>> effective CPU capacity in reaction to thermal events we receive from
>>> the CPU.
>> The problem with instantaneous update is that sometimes thermal events
>> happen at a much faster pace than cpu_capacity is updated in the
>> scheduler. This means that at the moment when scheduler uses the
>> value, it might not be correct anymore.
> Let me offer a different interpretation: if we average throttling events
> then we create a 'smooth' average of 'true CPU capacity' that doesn't
> fluctuate much. This allows more stable yet asymmetric task placement if
> the thermal characteristics of the different cores is different
> (asymmetric). This, compared to instantaneous updates, would reduce
> unnecessary task migrations between cores.
> Is that accurate?

Yes. I think it is accurate. I will also add that if we don't average
throttling events, we will miss the events that occur in between load
balancing(LB) period.

> If the thermal characteristics of the cores is roughly symmetric and the
> measured CPU-intense load itself is symmetric as well, then I have
> trouble seeing why reacting to thermal events should make any difference
> at all.
In this scenario, i agree that scheduler reaction to thermal events
should not make any difference in fact we should not observe any
improvement or degradation in performance.

> Are there any inherent asymmetries in the thermal properties of the
> cores, or in the benchmarked workload itself?

The benchmarked workload , meaning aobench? I don't think there arre any
asymmetries there. On Hikey960, there are two clusters with different
frequency domains. So yes I will say there is asymmetry there. Asides,
IMHO, any other tasks running on the system can create an inherent
asymmetry as cpu utilizations can vary.

> Thanks,
> Ingo


 \ /
  Last update: 2018-10-17 18:23    [W:0.137 / U:10.200 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site