lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Mar]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3] cpufreq: schedutil: rate limits for SCHED_DEADLINE
On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 11:29 AM, Claudio Scordino
<claudio@evidence.eu.com> wrote:
> When the SCHED_DEADLINE scheduling class increases the CPU utilization,
> we should not wait for the rate limit, otherwise we may miss some
> deadline.
>
> Tests using rt-app on Exynos5422 with up to 10 SCHED_DEADLINE tasks have
> shown reductions of even 10% of deadline misses with a negligible
> increase of energy consumption (measured through Baylibre Cape).
>
> Signed-off-by: Claudio Scordino <claudio@evidence.eu.com>
> CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
> CC: Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@arm.com>
> CC: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
> CC: Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>
> CC: Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>
> CC: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
> CC: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
> CC: Todd Kjos <tkjos@android.com>
> CC: Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>
> CC: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org
> CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> ---
> Changes from v2:
> - Rate limit ignored also in case of "fast switch"
> - Specific routine added
> ---
> Changes from v1:
> - Logic moved from sugov_should_update_freq() to
> sugov_update_single()/_shared() to not duplicate data structures
> - Rate limit not ignored in case of "fast switch"
> ---
> kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> index 7936f54..13f9cce 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> @@ -260,6 +260,17 @@ static bool sugov_cpu_is_busy(struct sugov_cpu *sg_cpu)
> static inline bool sugov_cpu_is_busy(struct sugov_cpu *sg_cpu) { return false; }
> #endif /* CONFIG_NO_HZ_COMMON */
>
> +/*
> + * Make sugov_should_update_freq() ignore the rate limit when DL
> + * has increased the utilization.
> + */
> +static inline

I wouldn't break the line here

> +void set_dl_rate_limit(struct sugov_cpu *sg_cpu, struct sugov_policy *sg_policy)

and the name might be better as Viresh said, but overall

Reviewed-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>

> +{
> + if (cpu_util_dl(cpu_rq(sg_cpu->cpu)) > sg_cpu->util_dl)
> + sg_policy->need_freq_update = true;
> +}
> +
> static void sugov_update_single(struct update_util_data *hook, u64 time,
> unsigned int flags)
> {
> @@ -273,6 +284,8 @@ static void sugov_update_single(struct update_util_data *hook, u64 time,
> sugov_set_iowait_boost(sg_cpu, time);
> sg_cpu->last_update = time;
>
> + set_dl_rate_limit(sg_cpu, sg_policy);
> +
> if (!sugov_should_update_freq(sg_policy, time))
> return;
>
> @@ -354,6 +367,8 @@ static void sugov_update_shared(struct update_util_data *hook, u64 time,
>
> raw_spin_lock(&sg_policy->update_lock);
>
> + set_dl_rate_limit(sg_cpu, sg_policy);
> +
> sugov_get_util(sg_cpu);
> sg_cpu->flags = flags;
>
> --
> 2.7.4
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-03-08 12:14    [W:0.037 / U:7.776 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site