Re: switching to top frequency too frequent with ondemand governorand no_hz

[Markus Trippelsdorf]

On 2011.06.06 at 18:34 +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 6 June 2011 16:16, Markus Trippelsdorf <markus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 2011.06.06 at 15:11 +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> >> On 6 June 2011 13:20, Markus Trippelsdorf <markus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > On 2011.06.06 at 09:35 +0200, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> >> >> On 2 June 2011 13:41, Markus Trippelsdorf <markus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >> > On 2011.06.01 at 20:00 +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> >> >> >> But I have found the root cause of symptoms described above by
> >> >> >> bisection. It turned out that 2.6.39 is also affected, so I've bisected
> >> >> >> down to 2.6.38.
> >> >> >> This is the result:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>  5cb2c3bd0c5e0f3ced63f250ec2ad59d7c5c626a is the first bad commit
> >> >> >>  commit 5cb2c3bd0c5e0f3ced63f250ec2ad59d7c5c626a
> >> >> >>  Author: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> >> >>  Date:   Mon Feb 7 17:14:25 2011 +0100
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>      [CPUFREQ] calculate delay after dbs_check_cpu
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> When I revert the above in 3.0-rc1 the CONFIG_NO_HZ=y symptoms vanish.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> The patch, you have mentioned, solves a problem when ondemand governor
> >> >> goes  from highest frequency to a lower one. Without the patch, the
> >> >> governor uses the longest sampling period (sampling period * scaling
> >> >> down factor) with a low frequency during the 1st period after
> >> >> decreasing the frequency. This can lead to a large time frame
> >> >> (sampling period * scaling down factor) with a low frequency but an
> >> >> overloaded cpu.
> >> >
> >> > The problem with the patch is that it results in an ondemand behavior
> >> > that almost totally ignores the middle frequencies (2100 and 2500 MHz in
> >> > my case) with CONFIG_NO_HZ. If you also set the sampling_down_factor to
> >> > something like >=100 then the CPU will spend much of the time at the top
> >> > frequency even if there is no workload whatsoever.
> >> >
> >>
> >> In fact, one main goal of the ondemand governor is to switch to max
> >> frequency as soon as there is a cpu activity is detected to ensure the
> >> responsiveness of the system. If your idle activity is made of burst
> >> of cpu activity and your sampling period is small,  your sytems will
> >> switch between the highest and the lowest frequency. At the contrary,
> >> the conservative governor modifies the frequency in a step by step
> >> manner.
> >
> > Understood. But this a change in behavior due to your patch.
> >
> >> >> The other correction of the patch is linked to the powersave bias
> >> >> mode. The governor didn't use the right period for the low frequency
> >> >> step (freq_lo_jiffies) but a larger one (sampling period * scaling
> >> >> down factor). The ratio between low and high frequency was not the
> >> >> right one.
> >> >>
> >> >> Do you use the powersave bias mode ?
> >> >
> >> > No.
> >> >
> >> >> Could you give us more statistics : the number of state transition
> >> >> could be an interesting value. Is there a difference with and without
> >> >> CONFIG_NO_HZ ? What is your sampling rate ?
> >> >
> >> > These are my settings:
> >> >
> >> > ignore_nice_load 0
> >> > io_is_busy 0
> >> > powersave_bias 0
> >> > sampling_down_factor 200
> >> > sampling_rate 10000
> >> > sampling_rate_min 10000
> >> > up_threshold 95
> >> >
> >> > cat sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/stats/* on an otherwise idle
> >> > machine with CONFIG_NO_HZ and 5cb2c3bd0c5e0f reverted:
> >> > 3200000 532
> >> > 2500000 172
> >> > 2100000 2703
> >> > 800000 20995
> >> > 153
> >> >
> >>
> >> With this configuration (without the patch), there is a period of 2
> >> seconds with a low frequency when the governor comes back from the
> >> highest frequency. During these 2 seconds, you will not be able to go
> >> back to max frequency. So, if your cpu is overloaded during this 2
> >> seconds period, you will not increase your frequency. For this use
> >> case, your cpufreq responsiveness is more then 2 seconds.
> >
> > I don't see these 2 second delays (being stuck on a low frequency) on my
> > system. On the contrary as soon as there is sufficient load it switches
> > to the highest frequency immediately.
> >
> 
> Let assume that your system is at the highest frequency
> 
> without the patch, you have the following sequence :
> 
> ->do_dbs_timer
>     -> delay = usecs_to_jiffies(dbs_tuners_ins.sampling_rate *
> dbs_info->rate_mult); // delay will be equal to 10000*200=2000000us
>     -> dbs_check_cpu
>            Let assume that your cpu load is quite small
>           -> freq_next = max_load_freq / (dbs_tuners_ins.up_threshold
> - dbs_tuners_ins.down_differential); //freq_next is set to your lowest
> frequency
>           -> __cpufreq_driver_target(policy, freq_next, CPUFREQ_RELATION_L);
>     -> 	queue_delayed_work_on(cpu, kondemand_wq, &dbs_info->work, delay);
> 
> the delay value is set to sampling_rate * rate_mult but the frequency
> is the lowest one which is not the correct behavior of the
> sampling_down_factor feature.
> the patch only solves this issue.
> 
> >> > and with your patch and also CONFIG_NO_HZ:
> >> > 3200000 11795
> >> > 2500000 0
> >> > 2100000 0
> >> > 800000 20620
> >> > 213
> >> >
> >> > Which shows the problem very nicely.
> >> >
> >>
> >> My understand is that your idle activity is made of cpu activities
> >> which are 10ms long and which trigs the increase of the frequency.
> >
> > Could it be that the call to dbs_check_cpu(dbs_info) itself is the
> > reason for these activities?
> >
> >> >> One difference with CONFIG_NO_HZ is the real sampling period which can
> >> >> be greater than the timer configuration because of the deferrable
> >> >> mode. The deferrable mode has nearly no effect when CONFIG_NO_HZ is
> >> >> not set because the tick timer will ensure enough cpu activity to
> >> >> trigger the governor. When CONFIG_NO_HZ is set, the ondemand governor
> >> >> work is triggered at the beginning of a cpu activity so we have more
> >> >> chance to have a short cpu load in one period instead of splitting it
> >> >> into 2 differents periods. This behavior is quite useful for
> >> >> responsiveness but can generates spurious frequency increase if the
> >> >> sampling rate is too short.
> >> >
> >> > Hm, my sampling rate (10000) is already the most minimal rate available.
> >> >
> >>
> >> It's seems that your sampling period is too small and the ondemand
> >> governor detects your idle activity as an increase of the cpu activity
> >> and as a result, it increases the frequency. Have you tried to
> >> increase the sampling rate and decrease your sampling_down_factor
> >> which seems to be also quite high ?
> >
> > Please note that these are all default values (with the exception of
> > sampling_down_factor). So why should I fiddle with the parameters when
> > everything was working fine before your patch went in? And even if I
> > increase the sampling rate and decrease the sampling_down_factor, I
> > cannot replicate the old behavior. So IMHO it's a regression.
> >
> 
> IMHO, the previous results were "good" because of the bug in the
> sampling_down_factor which was "filtering" some cpu activities after
> decreasing the frequency.
> 
> The best cpufreq statistic should be achieved in idle when the
> sampling_down_factor is set to 1 because the sampling_down_factor
> feature has been done to "improve performance by reducing the overhead
> of load evaluation and helping the CPU stay at its top speed"
> (Documentation/cpu-freq/governors.txt).
> 
> Could you make some measurements with sampling_down_factor set to 1
> and sampling_down_factor set to 200 ? The cpufreq statistic starts at
> system boot but we are interested in idle use case result so we should
> use the delta between 2 statistics outputs in order to remove boot
> measurements. Using the following command in idle should be enough #
> cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/stats/* && sleep 60 && cat
> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/stats/*

OK. 

On a totally idle system: 

1) With your patch: 

* sampling_down_factor=200
cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/stats/* && sleep 60 && cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/stats/*
3200000 507	
2500000 0
2100000 0
800000 903
13
3200000 533
2500000 0
2100000 0
800000 6876
14

diff:
3200000 26
2500000 0
2100000 0
800000 5973

* sampling_down_factor=1
3200000 1078
2500000 3
2100000 49
800000 15632
79
3200000 1078
2500000 3
2100000 49
800000 21632
79

diff:
3200000 0
2500000 0
2100000 0
800000 6000


2) Without your patch (reverted):

* sampling_down_factor=200
3200000 106
2500000 0
2100000 339
800000 1260
15
3200000 106
2500000 0
2100000 339
800000 7259
15

diff:
3200000 0
2500000 0
2100000 0
800000 5999

* sampling_down_factor=1
3200000 134
2500000 142
2100000 694
800000 13006
30
3200000 134
2500000 142
2100000 694
800000 19005
30

diff:
3200000 0
2500000 0
2100000 0
800000 5999


And now the same measurements while running:
watch -n.1 'cat /proc/cpuinfo|grep MHz'
in another terminal.

1) With your patch:

* sampling_down_factor=200
3200000 1243
2500000 4
2100000 68
800000 36493
187
3200000 1373
2500000 4
2100000 68
800000 42363
192

diff:
3200000 130
2500000 0
2100000 0
800000 5870

* sampling_down_factor=1
3200000 1205
2500000 4
2100000 67
800000 27873
171
3200000 1209
2500000 4
2100000 67
800000 33869
179

diff:
3200000 4
2500000 0
2100000 0
800000 5996

2) Without your patch (reverted):

* sampling_down_factor=200
3200000 240
2500000 0
2100000 505
800000 12842
41
3200000 245
2500000 0
2100000 505
800000 18836
51

diff:
3200000 5
2500000 0
2100000 0
800000 5994

* sampling_down_factor=1
3200000 230
2500000 0
2100000 505
800000 5497
31
3200000 234
2500000 0
2100000 505
800000 11493
39

diff:
3200000 4
2500000 0
2100000 0
800000 5996

So, with sampling_down_factor=200 and "watch -n.1" running, the CPU
spends 1300 msec on top speed vs. 50 msec without your patch.

BTW what irritates me is that "watch -n.1 'cat /proc/cpuinfo|grep MHz'"
shows way more frequency changes than what is reported in cpufreq/stats/.

-- 
Markus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/