RE: [RFC][PATCH 7/7] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Change P-state selection algorithm for Core

[Doug Smythies]

On 2016.08.19 07:47 Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 08:59:01AM -0700, Doug Smythies wrote:
>> My previous replies (and see below) have suggested that some filtering
>> is needed on the target pstate, otherwise, and dependant on the type of
>> workload, it tends to oscillate.
>> 
>> I added the IIR (Infinite Impulse Response) filter that I have suggested in the past:
>
> One question though; why is this filter intel_pstate specific? Should we
> not do this in generic code?

I wouldn't know. I'm not familiar with the other CPU frequency scaling drivers
or what filtering, if any, they already have.

>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c b/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
>> index c43ef55..262ec5f 100644
>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
>> @@ -1313,7 +1318,74 @@ static inline int32_t get_target_pstate_default(struct cpudata *cpu)
>>         cpu->iowait_boost >>= 1;
>> 
>>         pstate = cpu->pstate.turbo_pstate;
>> +       unfiltered_target = (pstate + (pstate >> 2)) * busy_frac;
>> +       duration_ns = cpu->sample.time - cpu->last_sample_time;
>> +
>> +       scaled_gain = div_u64(int_tofp(duration_ns) *
>> +               int_tofp(pid_params.p_gain_pct), int_tofp(pid_params.sample_rate_ns));
>
> Drop int_to_fp() on one of the dividend terms and in the divisor. Same
> end result since they divide away against one another but reduces the
> risk of overflow.

Yes of course. Thanks.

> Also, sample_rate_ns, really!? A rate is in [1/s], should that thing be
> called period_ns ?

Agreed (strongly), however and as Rafael mentioned on his reply, this stuff
has been around for a long time, including the externally available:

/sys/kernel/debug/pstate_snb/sample_rate_ms

Which be referenced by some documentation and scripts (I have some).
Myself, I'd be O.K. to change it all to "period".

>> +       if (scaled_gain > int_tofp(100))
>> +               scaled_gain = int_tofp(100);
>> +       if (scaled_gain < int_tofp(pid_params.p_gain_pct))
>> +               scaled_gain = int_tofp(pid_params.p_gain_pct);
>> +
>> +       /*
>> +        * Bandwidth limit the output. For now, re-task p_gain_pct for this purpose.
>> +        * Use a smple IIR (Infinite Impulse Response) filter.
>> +        */
>> +       cpu->sample.target = div_u64((int_tofp(100) - scaled_gain) *
>> +                       cpu->sample.target + scaled_gain *
>> +                       unfiltered_target, int_tofp(100));
>
> Really hard to read that stuff, maybe cure with a comment:
>
>	/*
>	 *       g = dt*p / period
>	 *
>	 * target' = (1 - g)*target  +  g*input
>	 */

Yes, O.K. I'll add more comments if this continues towards a formal
patch submission.

>> +
>> +       return fp_toint(cpu->sample.target + (1 << (FRAC_BITS-1)));
>>  }