public inbox for [email protected]
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Qais Yousef <[email protected]>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[email protected]>
Cc: Christian Loehle <[email protected]>,
	[email protected], [email protected],
	[email protected], [email protected],
	[email protected], [email protected],
	[email protected], [email protected],
	[email protected], [email protected],
	[email protected], [email protected],
	[email protected], [email protected],
	[email protected]
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] cpufreq/schedutil: Remove iowait boost
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2024 02:37:26 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240325023726.itkhlg66uo5kbljx@airbuntu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJZ5v0janPrWRkjcLkFeP9gmTC-nVRF-NQCh6CTET6ENy-_knQ@mail.gmail.com>

On 03/18/24 18:08, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 5:40 PM Christian Loehle
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On 18/03/2024 14:07, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 9:17 PM Christian Loehle
> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> The previous commit provides a new cpu_util_cfs_boost_io interface for
> > >> schedutil which uses the io boosted utilization of the per-task
> > >> tracking strategy. Schedutil iowait boosting is therefore no longer
> > >> necessary so remove it.
> > >
> > > I'm wondering about the cases when schedutil is used without EAS.
> > >
> > > Are they still going to be handled as before after this change?
> >
> > Well they should still get boosted (under the new conditions) and according
> > to my tests that does work.
> 
> OK
> 
> > Anything in particular you're worried about?
> 
> It is not particularly clear to me how exactly the boost is taken into
> account without EAS.
> 
> > So in terms of throughput I see similar results with EAS and CAS+sugov.
> > I'm happy including numbers in the cover letter for future versions, too.
> > So far my intuition was that nobody would care enough to include them
> > (as long as it generally still works).
> 
> Well, IMV clear understanding of the changes is more important.

I think the major thing we need to be careful about is the behavior when the
task is sleeping. I think the boosting will be removed when the task is
dequeued and I can bet there will be systems out there where the BLOCK softirq
being boosted when the task is sleeping will matter.

FWIW I do have an implementation for per-task iowait boost where I went a step
further and converted intel_pstate too and like Christian didn't notice
a regression. But I am not sure (rather don't think) I triggered this use case.
I can't tell when the systems truly have per-cpu cpufreq control or just appear
so and they are actually shared but not visible at linux level.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2024-03-25  2:37 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-03-04 20:16 [RFC PATCH 0/2] Introduce per-task io utilization boost Christian Loehle
2024-03-04 20:16 ` [RFC PATCH 1/2] sched/fair: Introduce per-task io util boost Christian Loehle
2024-03-25  3:30   ` Qais Yousef
2024-03-04 20:16 ` [RFC PATCH 2/2] cpufreq/schedutil: Remove iowait boost Christian Loehle
2024-03-18 14:07   ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2024-03-18 16:40     ` Christian Loehle
2024-03-18 17:08       ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2024-03-19 13:58         ` Christian Loehle
2024-03-25  2:37         ` Qais Yousef [this message]
2024-04-19 13:42           ` Christian Loehle
2024-04-29 11:18             ` Qais Yousef
2024-05-07 15:19               ` Christian Loehle
2024-05-12 15:29                 ` Qais Yousef
2024-03-05  0:20 ` [RFC PATCH 0/2] Introduce per-task io utilization boost Bart Van Assche
2024-03-05  9:13   ` Christian Loehle
2024-03-05 18:36     ` Bart Van Assche
2024-03-06 10:49       ` Christian Loehle
2024-03-21 12:39         ` Qais Yousef
2024-03-21 17:57           ` Christian Loehle
2024-03-21 19:52             ` Bart Van Assche
2024-03-25 12:06               ` Christian Loehle
2024-03-25 17:23                 ` Bart Van Assche
2024-03-25  2:53             ` Qais Yousef
2024-03-22 18:08 ` Vincent Guittot
2024-03-25  2:20   ` Qais Yousef
2024-03-25 17:18     ` Christian Loehle
2024-03-25 12:24   ` Christian Loehle
2024-03-28 10:09     ` Vincent Guittot

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20240325023726.itkhlg66uo5kbljx@airbuntu \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox