public inbox for [email protected]
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Qais Yousef <[email protected]>
To: Christian Loehle <[email protected]>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <[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, 29 Apr 2024 12:18:16 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240429111816.mqok5biihvy46eba@airbuntu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

On 04/19/24 14:42, Christian Loehle wrote:

> > 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.
> 
> Currently I see this mainly protected by the sugov rate_limit_us.
> With the enqueue's being the dominating cpufreq updates it's not really an
> issue, the boost is expected to survive the sleep duration, during which it
> wouldn't be active.
> I did experiment with some sort of 'stickiness' of the boost to the rq, but
> it is somewhat of a pain to deal with if we want to remove it once enqueued
> on a different rq. A sugov 1ms timer is much simpler of course.
> Currently it's not necessary IMO, but for the sake of being future-proof in
> terms of more frequent freq updates I might include it in v2.

Making sure things work with purpose would be really great. This implicit
dependency is not great IMHO and make both testing and reasoning about why
things are good or bad harder when analysing real workloads. Especially by non
kernel developers.

> 
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> Please do share your intel_pstate proposal!

This is what I had. I haven't been working on this for the past few months, but
I remember tried several tests on different machines then without a problem.
I tried to re-order patches at some point though and I hope I didn't break
something accidentally and forgot the state.

https://github.com/torvalds/linux/compare/master...qais-yousef:linux:uclamp-max-aggregation

  reply	other threads:[~2024-04-29 11:18 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
2024-04-19 13:42           ` Christian Loehle
2024-04-29 11:18             ` Qais Yousef [this message]
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=20240429111816.mqok5biihvy46eba@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