lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Sep]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/3] arm64: rebuild sched domains on invariance status changes
Hi guys,

On Monday 28 Sep 2020 at 13:55:49 (+0200), Dietmar Eggemann wrote:
> On 25/09/2020 15:59, Quentin Perret wrote:
> > Hey Ionela,
> >
> > On Thursday 24 Sep 2020 at 17:10:02 (+0100), Ionela Voinescu wrote:
> >> I'm not sure what is a good way of fixing this.. I could add more info
> >> to the warning to suggest it might be temporary ("Disabling EAS:
> >> frequency-invariant load tracking currently not supported"). For further
> >> debugging there are the additional prints guarded by sched_debug().
> >>
> >> I'll look over the code some more to see if other ideas pop out. Any
> >> suggestions are appreciated.
> >
> > Right, I'm not seeing anything perfect here, but I think I'd be
> > personally happy with this message being entirely guarded by
> > sched_debug(), like we do for asym CPU capacities for instance.
> >
> > It's not easy to see if EAS has started at all w/o sched debug anyway,
> > so I expect folks who need it to enable the debug stuff during
> > bring-up. With a descriptive enough warn message, that should be just
> > fine. But that's my 2p, so I'm happy to hear if others disagree.
>
> Are you discussing a scenario where the system doesn't have FI via
> CPUfreq but only via AMU? And then we would get the pr_warn
>
> "rd %*pbl: Disabling EAS: frequency-invariant load tracking not
> supported"
>

Yes, that is correct. Unfortunately for !sched_debug, even if we have
FI via AMUs, the EAS enablement message "sched_energy_set: starting EAS"
won't appear, and therefore one would only see the warnings above, giving
the wrong impression that EAS is disabled.

> in (1)-(3)?
>
> (1) initial sd build
> (2) update_topology_flags_workfn()
> (3) rebuild_sched_domains_energy()
> (4) init_amu_fie()
>
> Today (e.g. on Juno( we start EAS within (1)
>
> root@juno:~# dmesg | grep "build_perf_domains\|EAS"
> [ 3.491304] *** build_perf_domains: rd 0-5
> [ 3.574226] sched_energy_set: starting EAS <--- !!!
> [ 3.847584] *** build_perf_domains: rd 0-5
> [ 3.928227] *** build_perf_domains: rd 0-5
>
> And on a future AMU FI only system it would look like:
>
> Disabling EAS: frequency-invariant load tracking not supported"
> Disabling EAS: frequency-invariant load tracking not supported"
> Disabling EAS: frequency-invariant load tracking not supported"
> sched_energy_set: starting EAS
>

Correct (with the same mention that "sched_energy_set: starting EAS" is
guarded by sched debug).

> I guess it's a good idea to put all those warnings which indicate why
> EAS can't be started under sched_debug().
>
> The warning "rd %*pbl: CPUs do not have asymmetric capacities" already
> is. This one is actually very similar to the FI related one, since
> 'asymmetric capacities' could only exist starting with (2) (big.LITTLE
> based entirely on CPUfreq diffs)

Yes, this seems the right solution, as suggested by Quentin as well.
I'll do this together with the other suggestions and submit v2.

Thank you both,
Ionela.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-09-28 16:24    [W:0.042 / U:5.592 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site