Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 12 May 2018 22:19:33 -0700 | From | Joel Fernandes <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Revert "cpufreq: schedutil: Don't restrict kthread to related_cpus unnecessarily" |
| |
On Tue, May 08, 2018 at 10:42:37AM +0100, Quentin Perret wrote: > On Tuesday 08 May 2018 at 11:09:57 (+0200), Dietmar Eggemann wrote: > > On 05/08/2018 10:22 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > > On 08-05-18, 08:33, Dietmar Eggemann wrote: > > > > This reverts commit e2cabe48c20efb174ce0c01190f8b9c5f3ea1d13. > > > > > > > > Lifting the restriction that the sugov kthread is bound to the > > > > policy->related_cpus for a system with a slow switching cpufreq driver, > > > > which is able to perform DVFS from any cpu (e.g. cpufreq-dt), is not > > > > only not beneficial it also harms Enery-Aware Scheduling (EAS) on > > > > systems with asymmetric cpu capacities (e.g. Arm big.LITTLE). > > > > > > > > The sugov kthread which does the update for the little cpus could > > > > potentially run on a big cpu. It could prevent that the big cluster goes > > > > into deeper idle states although all the tasks are running on the little > > > > cluster. > > > > > > I think the original patch did the right thing, but that doesn't suit > > > everybody as you explained. > > > > > > I wouldn't really revert the patch but fix my platform's cpufreq > > > driver to set dvfs_possible_from_any_cpu = false, so that other > > > platforms can still benefit from the original commit. > > > > This would make sure that the kthreads are bound to the correct set of cpus > > for platforms with those cpufreq drivers (cpufreq-dt (h960), scmi-cpufreq, > > scpi-cpufreq) but it will also change the logic (e.g. > > sugov_should_update_freq() -> cpufreq_can_do_remote_dvfs()). > > > > I'm still struggling to understand when a driver/platform should set > > dvfs_possible_from_any_cpu to true and what the actual benefit would be. > > I assume it might be beneficial to have the kthread moving around freely > in some cases, but since it is a SCHED_DEADLINE task now it can't really > migrate anywhere anyway. So I'm not sure either if this commits still makes > sense now. Or is there another use case for this ?
The usecase I guess is, as Dietmar was saying, that it makes sense for kthread to update its own cluster and not disturb other clusters or random CPUs. I agree with this point.
- Joel
| |