| Message ID | 1520937340-2755-1-git-send-email-claudio@evidence.eu.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Mainlined |
| Delegated to: | Rafael Wysocki |
| Headers | show |
On 13-03-18, 11:35, Claudio Scordino 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> > Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> > Reviewed-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> > CC: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> > CC: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> > 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: 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 v3: > - Specific routine renamed as ignore_dl_rate_limit() LGTM. Thanks.
On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 4:15 AM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote: > On 13-03-18, 11:35, Claudio Scordino 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> >> Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> >> Reviewed-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> >> CC: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> >> CC: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> >> 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: 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 v3: >> - Specific routine renamed as ignore_dl_rate_limit() > > LGTM. Thanks. Nice! Thanks. - Joel
On Wednesday, March 14, 2018 2:27:53 AM CET Joel Fernandes wrote: > On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 4:15 AM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> wrote: > > On 13-03-18, 11:35, Claudio Scordino 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> > >> Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> > >> Reviewed-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> > >> CC: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> > >> CC: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> > >> 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: 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 v3: > >> - Specific routine renamed as ignore_dl_rate_limit() > > > > LGTM. Thanks. > > Nice! Thanks. OK, the patch doesn't seem to depend on anything in -tip, so I'm going to apply it. Thanks!
diff --git a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c index feb5f89..2aeb1ca 100644 --- a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c +++ b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c @@ -257,6 +257,16 @@ 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 void ignore_dl_rate_limit(struct sugov_cpu *sg_cpu, struct sugov_policy *sg_policy) +{ + 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) { @@ -270,6 +280,8 @@ static void sugov_update_single(struct update_util_data *hook, u64 time, sugov_set_iowait_boost(sg_cpu, time); sg_cpu->last_update = time; + ignore_dl_rate_limit(sg_cpu, sg_policy); + if (!sugov_should_update_freq(sg_policy, time)) return; @@ -351,6 +363,8 @@ sugov_update_shared(struct update_util_data *hook, u64 time, unsigned int flags) raw_spin_lock(&sg_policy->update_lock); + ignore_dl_rate_limit(sg_cpu, sg_policy); + sugov_get_util(sg_cpu); sg_cpu->flags = flags;