Re: [BUG] schedutil governor produces regular max freq spikes because of lockup detector watchdog threads

[Patrick Bellasi]

On 08-Jan 15:20, Leonard Crestez wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-01-08 at 09:31 +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 05-01-18, 23:18, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 9:37 PM, Leonard Crestez <leonard.crestez@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > > > When using the schedutil governor together with the softlockup detector
> > > > all CPUs go to their maximum frequency on a regular basis. This seems
> > > > to be because the watchdog creates a RT thread on each CPU and this
> > > > causes regular kicks with:
> > > > 
> > > >     cpufreq_update_this_cpu(rq, SCHED_CPUFREQ_RT);
> > > > 
> > > > The schedutil governor responds to this by immediately setting the
> > > > maximum cpu frequency, this is very undesirable.
> > > > 
> > > > The issue can be fixed by this patch from android:
> > > > 
> > > > The patch stalled in a long discussion about how it's difficult for
> > > > cpufreq to deal with RT and how some RT users might just disable
> > > > cpufreq. It is indeed hard but if the system experiences regular power
> > > > kicks from a common debug feature they will end up disabling schedutil
> > > > instead.
> 
> > > Patrick has a series of patches dealing with this problem area AFAICS,
> > > but we are currently integrating material from Juri related to
> > > deadline tasks.
> 
> > I am not sure if Patrick's patches would solve this problem at all as
> > we still go to max for RT and the RT task is created from the
> > softlockup detector somehow.
> 
> I assume you're talking about the series starting with
> "[PATCH v3 0/6] cpufreq: schedutil: fixes for flags updates"
> 
> I checked and they have no effect on this particular issue (not
> surprising).

Yeah, that series was addressing the same issue but for one specific
RT thread: the one used by schedutil to change the frequency.
For all other RT threads the intended behavior was still to got
to max... moreover those patches has been superseded by a different
solution which has been recently proposed by Peter:

   20171220155625.lopjlsbvss3qgb4d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

As Viresh and Rafael suggested, we should eventually consider a
different scheduling class and/or execution context for the watchdog.
Maybe a generalization of Juri's proposed SCHED_FLAG_SUGOV flag for
DL tasks can be useful:

   20171204102325.5110-4-juri.lelli@xxxxxxxxxx

Although that solution is already considered "gross" and thus perhaps
it does not make sense to keep adding special DL tasks.

Another possible alternative to "tag an RT task" as being special, is
to use an API similar to the one proposed by the util_clamp RFC:

   20170824180857.32103-1-patrick.bellasi@xxxxxxx

which would allow to define what's the maximum utilization which can
be required by a properly configured RT task.

-- 
#include <best/regards.h>

Patrick Bellasi