Messages in this thread | | | From | Amit Kucheria <> | Date | Tue, 19 Nov 2019 16:24:17 +0530 | Subject | Re: [Patch v5 0/6] Introduce Thermal Pressure |
| |
On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 12:20 AM Thara Gopinath <thara.gopinath@linaro.org> wrote: > > Thermal governors can respond to an overheat event of a cpu by > capping the cpu's maximum possible frequency. This in turn > means that the maximum available compute capacity of the > cpu is restricted. But today in the kernel, task scheduler is > not notified of capping of maximum frequency of a cpu. > In other words, scheduler is unaware of maximum capacity > restrictions placed on a cpu due to thermal activity. > This patch series attempts to address this issue. > The benefits identified are better task placement among available > cpus in event of overheating which in turn leads to better > performance numbers. > > The reduction in the maximum possible capacity of a cpu due to a > thermal event can be considered as thermal pressure. Instantaneous > thermal pressure is hard to record and can sometime be erroneous > as there can be mismatch between the actual capping of capacity > and scheduler recording it. Thus solution is to have a weighted > average per cpu value for thermal pressure over time. > The weight reflects the amount of time the cpu has spent at a > capped maximum frequency. Since thermal pressure is recorded as > an average, it must be decayed periodically. Exisiting algorithm > in the kernel scheduler pelt framework is re-used to calculate > the weighted average. This patch series also defines a sysctl > inerface to allow for a configurable decay period. > > Regarding testing, basic build, boot and sanity testing have been > performed on db845c platform with debian file system. > Further, dhrystone and hackbench tests have been > run with the thermal pressure algorithm. During testing, due to > constraints of step wise governor in dealing with big little systems,
What contraints?
> trip point 0 temperature was made assymetric between cpus in little > cluster and big cluster; the idea being that > big core will heat up and cpu cooling device will throttle the > frequency of the big cores faster, there by limiting the maximum available > capacity and the scheduler will spread out tasks to little cores as well.
Can you share the hack to get this behaviour as well so I can try to reproduce on 845c?
> Test Results > > Hackbench: 1 group , 30000 loops, 10 runs > Result SD > (Secs) (% of mean) > No Thermal Pressure 14.03 2.69% > Thermal Pressure PELT Algo. Decay : 32 ms 13.29 0.56% > Thermal Pressure PELT Algo. Decay : 64 ms 12.57 1.56% > Thermal Pressure PELT Algo. Decay : 128 ms 12.71 1.04% > Thermal Pressure PELT Algo. Decay : 256 ms 12.29 1.42% > Thermal Pressure PELT Algo. Decay : 512 ms 12.42 1.15% >
| |