Re: [PATCH v1] Revert "cpufreq: schedutil: Move max CPU capacity to sugov_policy"
From: Lukasz Luba
Date: Tue Dec 06 2022 - 03:19:40 EST
Hi Viresh,
On 12/5/22 09:18, Viresh Kumar wrote:
Lukasz,
On 10-11-22, 19:57, Sam Wu wrote:
diff --git a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
index 9161d1136d01..1207c78f85c1 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
@@ -25,9 +25,6 @@ struct sugov_policy {
unsigned int next_freq;
unsigned int cached_raw_freq;
- /* max CPU capacity, which is equal for all CPUs in freq. domain */
- unsigned long max;
-
/* The next fields are only needed if fast switch cannot be used: */
struct irq_work irq_work;
struct kthread_work work;
@@ -51,6 +48,7 @@ struct sugov_cpu {
unsigned long util;
unsigned long bw_dl;
+ unsigned long max;
IIUC, this part, i.e. moving max to sugov_policy, wasn't the problem
here, right ? Can you send a patch for that at least first, since this
is fully reverted now.
Or it doesn't make sense?
Yes, that still could make sense. We could still optimize a bit that
code in the sugov_next_freq_shared(). Look at that function. It loops
over all CPUs in the policy and calls sugov_get_util() which calls
this arch_scale_cpu_capacity() N times. Then it does those
multiplications below:
if (j_util * max > j_max * util)
which will be 2*N mul operations...
IMO this is pointless and heavy for LITTLE cores which are 4 or
sometimes 6 in the policy.
As you could see, my code just left that loop with a simple
max() operation.
I might just attack this code differently. Switch to that
sugov_policy::max, fetch the cpu capacity only once, before that loop.
I will rewrite a bit the sugov_get_util() and adjust the
2nd user of it: sugov_update_single_common()
Regards,
Lukasz