lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Mar]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFT][Update][PATCH 2/2] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Update max CPU frequency on global turbo changes
On Tuesday 05 Mar 2019 at 18:02:25 (+0100), Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> But that 128 needs to be compared to
>
> (SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE * cpuinfo.min_freq) / cpuinfo.max_freq
>
> so with SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE equal to 1024 this means max_freq 8x
> higher than min_freq. That is not totally unreasonable IMO and
> because sg_cpu->iowait_boost grows exponentially, the difference
> between 8x and, say, 4x is one iteration.
>
> > The first steps will all be below the min freq, so they'll just be
> > transparent, while right now the iowait boost kicks in much faster :/
>
> There can be one iteration of a difference this way or that way AFAICS
> and I'm not even sure how much of a performance difference that makes
> in practice.

Yeah I don't expect that to have a huge impact TBH but it'd be nice to
actually get numbers to verify that, that's all I'm saying :-)

You have 'funny' platforms like Juno r0 out there where the min/max
frequencies are 450MHz/850Mhz. In this case, starting from 128 you'll
need 3 wake-ups to reach what is currently the starting point. I'm not
sure if the impact is visible or not, but it's worth checking.

> OTOH I fundamentally don't see why the iowait boost should ramp up
> faster on CPUs having a higher max_freq to min_freq ratio. Say you
> have two platforms, both with max_freq of 2 GHz and with min_freq
> equal to 250 MHz and 500 MHz, respectively. The ratios in question
> will be 8 and 4 then, so the first one will reliably react 50% slower
> to iowait than the second one for no particular reason at all.
>
> > OTOH, you also have platforms like the recent Snapdragons with 30+ OPPs,
> > and for them starting at 128 will speed things up.
> >
> > So maybe what you want is to start at max(min, 128) ?
>
> That's not just min, though, or is it?

I'm not sure to get the question, so just to make sure it's clearer, I
was suggesting to do something along the lines of:

sg_cpu->min = max(min_freq * 1024 / max_freq, 128);

That basically just prevents you from starting too low -- some boards,
unlike juno, have tons of OPPs on the lower end of the curve so these
might benefit from getting a higher starting point. But then perhaps
this is in fact a good illustration of the issue of having different
ramp-up speeds depending on the min_freq so ... :-)

Thanks,
Quentin

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-03-05 18:38    [W:0.074 / U:0.780 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site