Re: [RFC PATCH] sched: Consolidate cpufreq updates

[Hongyan Xia]

On 24/03/2024 02:01, Qais Yousef wrote:
> Improve the interaction with cpufreq governors by making the
> cpufreq_update_util() calls more intentional.
>
> At the moment we send them when load is updated for CFS, bandwidth for
> DL and at enqueue/dequeue for RT. But this can lead to too many updates
> sent in a short period of time and potentially be ignored at a critical
> moment due to the rate_limit_us in schedutil.
>
> For example, simultaneous task enqueue on the CPU where 2nd task is
> bigger and requires higher freq. The trigger to cpufreq_update_util() by
> the first task will lead to dropping the 2nd request until tick. Or
> another CPU in the same policy triggers a freq update shortly after.
>
> Updates at enqueue for RT are not strictly required. Though they do help
> to reduce the delay for switching the frequency and the potential
> observation of lower frequency during this delay. But current logic
> doesn't intentionally (at least to my understanding) try to speed up the
> request.
>
> To help reduce the amount of cpufreq updates and make them more
> purposeful, consolidate them into these locations:
>
> 1. context_switch()
> 2. task_tick_fair()
> 3. {attach, detach}_entity_load_avg()
> 4. update_blocked_averages()
>
> The update at context switch should help guarantee that DL and RT get
> the right frequency straightaway when they're RUNNING. As mentioned
> though the update will happen slightly after enqueue_task(); though in
> an ideal world these tasks should be RUNNING ASAP and this additional
> delay should be negligible. For fair tasks we need to make sure we send
> a single update for every decay for the root cfs_rq. Any changes to the
> rq will be deferred until the next task is ready to run, or we hit TICK.
> But we are guaranteed the task is running at a level that meets its
> requirements after enqueue.
>
> To guarantee RT and DL tasks updates are never missed, we add a new
> SCHED_CPUFREQ_FORCE_UPDATE to ignore the rate_limit_us. If we are
> already running at the right freq, the governor will end up doing
> nothing, but we eliminate the risk of the task ending up accidentally
> running at the wrong freq due to rate_limit_us.

There may be two things in this patch:

1. Have well-defined, centralized places where we update CPU frequency.
2. The FORCE_UPDATE flag.

I agree that at the moment, frequency updates inside the scheduler are 
scattered around in many places, and they can be called consecutively in 
a short period of time. Defining those places explicitly instead of 
triggering frequency updates here and there sounds like a good idea, so 
I definitely support 1.

Not sure about 2. I think rate limit is there for a reason, although I 
don't have that many platforms to test on to know whether forcing the 
update is a problem.

> [...]