Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: CPPC: Resolve the large frequency discrepancy from cpuinfo_cur_freq

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




在 2024/1/13 2:33, Vanshidhar Konda 写道:
On Wed, Jan 10, 2024 at 03:09:48PM +0800, lihuisong (C) wrote:
Hi Ionela,

在 2024/1/8 22:03, Ionela Voinescu 写道:
Hi,

On Friday 05 Jan 2024 at 15:04:47 (+0800), lihuisong (C) wrote:
Hi Vanshi,

在 2024/1/5 8:48, Vanshidhar Konda 写道:
On Thu, Jan 04, 2024 at 05:36:51PM +0800, lihuisong (C) wrote:
在 2024/1/4 1:53, Ionela Voinescu 写道:
Hi,

On Tuesday 12 Dec 2023 at 15:26:17 (+0800), Huisong Li wrote:
Many developers found that the cpu current frequency is greater than the maximum frequency of the platform, please see [1], [2] and [3].

In the scenarios with high memory access pressure, the patch [1] has proved the significant latency of cpc_read() which is used to obtain delivered and reference performance counter cause an absurd frequency.
The sampling interval for this counters is very critical and
is expected
to be equal. However, the different latency of cpc_read() has a direct
impact on their sampling interval.

Would this [1] alternative solution work for you?
It would work for me AFAICS.
Because the "arch_freq_scale" is also from AMU core and constant
counter, and read together.
But, from their discuss line, it seems that there are some tricky
points to clarify or consider.
I think the changes in [1] would work better when CPUs may be idle. With
this
patch we would have to wake any core that is in idle state to read the
AMU
counters. Worst case, if core 0 is trying to read the CPU frequency of
all
cores, it may need to wake up all the other cores to read the AMU
counters.
From the approach in [1], if all CPUs (one or more cores) under one policy
are idle, they still cannot be obtained the CPU frequency, right?
In this case, the [1] API will return 0 and have to back to call
cpufreq_driver->get() for cpuinfo_cur_freq.
Then we still need to face the issue this patch mentioned.
With the implementation at [1], arch_freq_get_on_cpu() will not return 0
for idle CPUs and the get() callback will not be called to wake up the
CPUs.
Right, arch_freq_get_on_cpu() will not return 0 for idle CPUs.
However, for no-housekeeping CPUs, it will return 0 and have to call get() callback, right?

Worst case, arch_freq_get_on_cpu() will return a frequency based on the
AMU counter values obtained on the last tick on that CPU. But if that CPU is not a housekeeping CPU, a housekeeping CPU in the same policy will be
selected, as it would have had a more recent tick, and therefore a more
recent frequency value for the domain.
But this frequency is from the last tick,
this last tick is probably a long time ago and it doesn't update 'arch_freq_scale' for some reasons like CPU dile. In addition, I'm not sure if there is possible that amu_scale_freq_tick() is executed delayed under high stress case.
It also have an impact on the accuracy of the cpu frequency we query.

I understand that the frequency returned here will not be up to date,
but there's no proper frequency feedback for an idle CPU. If one only
wakes up a CPU to sample counters, before the CPU goes back to sleep,
the obtained frequency feedback is meaningless.

For systems with 128 cores or more, this could be very expensive and
happen
very frequently.

AFAICS, the approach in [1] would avoid this cost.
But the CPU frequency is just an average value for the last tick period
instead of the current one the CPU actually runs at.
In addition, there are some conditions to use 'arch_freq_scale' in this
approach.
What are the conditions you are referring to?
It depends on the housekeeping CPUs.

So I'm not sure if this approach can entirely cover the frequency
discrepancy issue.
Unfortunately there is no perfect frequency feedback. By the time you
observe/use the value of scaling_cur_freq/cpuinfo_cur_freq, the frequency of the CPU might have already changed. Therefore, an average value might
be a better indication of the recent performance level of a CPU.
An average value for CPU frequency is ok. It may be better if it has not any delaying.

The original implementation for cpuinfo_cur_freq can more reflect their
meaning in the user-guide [1]. The user-guide said:
"cpuinfo_cur_freq : Current frequency of the CPU as obtained from the hardware, in KHz.
This is the frequency the CPU actually runs at."


[1]https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/cpu-freq/user-guide.txt


Would you be able to test [1] on your platform and usecase?
I has tested it on my platform (CPU number: 64, SMT: off and CPU base frequency: 2.7GHz).
Accoding to the testing result,
1> I found that patch [1] and [2] cannot cover the no housekeeping CPUs. They still have to face the large frequency discrepancy issue my patch mentioned. 2> Additionally, the frequency value of all CPUs are almost the same by using the 'arch_freq_scale' factor way. I'm not sure if it is ok.

The patch [1] has been modified silightly as below:
-->
@@ -1756,7 +1756,10 @@ static unsigned int cpufreq_verify_current_freq(struct cpufreq_policy *policy, b
 {
        unsigned int new_freq;

-       new_freq = cpufreq_driver->get(policy->cpu);
+       new_freq = arch_freq_get_on_cpu(policy->cpu);
+       if (!new_freq)
+               new_freq = cpufreq_driver->get(policy->cpu);
+
        if (!new_freq)
                return 0;

And the result is as follows:
*case 1:**No setting the nohz_full and cpufreq use performance governor*
*--> Step1: *read 'cpuinfo_cur_freq' in no pressure
  0: 2699264     2: 2699264     4: 2699264     6: 2699264
  8: 2696628    10: 2696628    12: 2696628    14: 2699264
 16: 2699264    18: 2696628    20: 2699264    22: 2696628
 24: 2699264    26: 2696628    28: 2699264    30: 2696628
 32: 2696628    34: 2696628    36: 2696628    38: 2696628
 40: 2699264    42: 2699264    44: 2696628    46: 2696628
 48: 2696628    50: 2699264    52: 2699264    54: 2696628
 56: 2696628    58: 2696628    60: 2696628    62: 2696628
 64: 2696628    66: 2699264    68: 2696628    70: 2696628
 72: 2699264    74: 2696628    76: 2696628    78: 2699264
 80: 2696628    82: 2696628    84: 2699264    86: 2696628
 88: 2696628    90: 2696628    92: 2696628    94: 2699264
 96: 2696628    98: 2699264   100: 2699264   102: 2696628
104: 2699264   106: 2699264   108: 2699264   110: 2696628
112: 2699264   114: 2699264   116: 2699264   118: 2699264
120: 2696628   122: 2699264   124: 2696628   126: 2699264
Note: the frequency of all CPUs are almost the same.

*--> Step 2: *read 'cpuinfo_cur_freq' in the high memory access pressure.
  0: 2696628     2: 2696628     4: 2696628     6: 2696628
  8: 2696628    10: 2696628    12: 2696628    14: 2696628
 16: 2696628    18: 2696628    20: 2696628    22: 2696628
 24: 2696628    26: 2696628    28: 2696628    30: 2696628
 32: 2696628    34: 2696628    36: 2696628    38: 2696628
 40: 2696628    42: 2696628    44: 2696628    46: 2696628
 48: 2696628    50: 2696628    52: 2696628    54: 2696628
 56: 2696628    58: 2696628    60: 2696628    62: 2696628
 64: 2696628    66: 2696628    68: 2696628    70: 2696628
 72: 2696628    74: 2696628    76: 2696628    78: 2696628
 80: 2696628    82: 2696628    84: 2696628    86: 2696628
 88: 2696628    90: 2696628    92: 2696628    94: 2696628
 96: 2696628    98: 2696628   100: 2696628   102: 2696628
104: 2696628   106: 2696628   108: 2696628   110: 2696628
112: 2696628   114: 2696628   116: 2696628   118: 2696628
120: 2696628   122: 2696628   124: 2696628   126: 2696628

*Case 2: setting nohz_full and cpufreq use ondemand governor*
There is "isolcpus=1-10,41-50 nohz_full=1-10,41-50 rcu_nocbs=1-10,41-50" in /proc/cmdline. *--> Step 1: *setting ondemand governor to all policy and query 'cpuinfo_cur_freq' in no pressure case.
And the frequency of CPUs all are about 400MHz.
*--> Step 2:* read 'cpuinfo_cur_freq' in the high memory access pressure. The high memory access pressure is from the command: "stress-ng -c 64 --cpu-load 100% --taskset 0-63"
The result:
 0: 2696628     1:  400000     2:  400000     3:  400909
 4:  400000     5:  400000     6:  400000     7:  400000
 8:  400000     9:  400000    10:  400600    11: 2696628
12: 2696628    13: 2696628    14: 2696628    15: 2696628
16: 2696628    17: 2696628    18: 2696628    19: 2696628
20: 2696628    21: 2696628    22: 2696628    23: 2696628
24: 2696628    25: 2696628    26: 2696628    27: 2696628
28: 2696628    29: 2696628    30: 2696628    31: 2696628
32: 2696628    33: 2696628    34: 2696628    35: 2696628
36: 2696628    37: 2696628    38: 2696628    39: 2696628
40: 2696628    41:  400000    42:  400000    43:  400000
44:  400000    45:  398847    46:  400000    47:  400000
48:  400000    49:  400000    50:  400000    51: 2696628
52: 2696628    53: 2696628    54: 2696628    55: 2696628
56: 2696628    57: 2696628    58: 2696628    59: 2696628
60: 2696628    61: 2696628    62: 2696628    63: 2699264

Note:
(1) The frequency of 1-10 and 41-50 CPUs work on the lowest frequency.
     It turned out that nohz full was already work.
     I guess that stress-ng cannot use the CPU in the range of nohz full.      Because the CPU frequency will be increased to 2.7G by binding CPU to other application. (2) The frequency of the nohz full core is calculated by get() callback according to ftrace.

I think this is a good point. It is possible that on large core count
systems a number of CPUs are isolated and don't have a kernel tick. The
approach in [1] won't work for those CPUs. The changes proposed in this
patch make sure that regardless of the scheduler or governor
configuration, the CPU frequency reporting will be correct.

My concerns with this approach:
1. We will wake up idle CPUs and query the AMU counters.
   a. This may not reflect the CPU frequency at the time the CPU was
   running. For example, CPU was running at 2.7 GHz, then became idle and
   invoked WFI. The CPU implementation reduces the CPU frequency to 400
   MHz when it enters WFI. Now if we wake up the CPU to query the
   frequency, it will return 400 MHz. This might be misleading.

   b. It wastes energy as we may wake up cores just to query frequency
   and then have them go back to idle.
Waking up an idle CPU to query CPU frequency and then going back to idle wastes energy. The frequency of the idle CPUs may be is zero, but we cannot display zero because it is not friendly for user. If we use the cached counter as the frequency feedback before CPU being idle, it cannot reflect a real frequency on CPU.
So there is no perfect frequency feedback for idle CPUs.

   To solve this, may be we can cache the value of AMU counters; return
   the cached value of the AMU counter if the CPU is idle.
The "arch_freq_scale" which is from AMU counters is similar to the cached value in Beata's approach.
But it just work for the housekeeping CPUs with tick.
If using cached frequency is ok, how shoud we do for nohz full CPUs? I have no good idea.

2. I think the acpi_cppc should use FFH registers only if the firmware
   publishes FFH support for both the delivered and reference counters.
   That way the system designer (through firmware) can control if the
   FFH registers are used for computing frequency.
Right, so this patch have to judge if support FFH.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20231127160838.1403404-3-beata.michalska@xxxxxxx/

Thanks,
Vanshidhar


[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230418113459.12860-7-sumitg@xxxxxxxxxx/ [2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20231127160838.1403404-3-beata.michalska@xxxxxxx/

Many thanks,
Ionela.

/Huisong

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20231127160838.1403404-1-beata.michalska@xxxxxxx/

Thanks,
Ionela.

This patch adds a interface, cpc_read_arch_counters_on_cpu, to read delivered and reference performance counter together. According to my
test[4], the discrepancy of cpu current frequency in the
scenarios with
high memory access pressure is lower than 0.2% by stress-ng
application.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231025093847.3740104-4-zengheng4@xxxxxxxxxx/ [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230328193846.8757-1-yang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
[3]
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230418113459.12860-7-sumitg@xxxxxxxxxx/

[4] My local test:
The testing platform enable SMT and include 128 logical CPU in total, and CPU base frequency is 2.7GHz. Reading "cpuinfo_cur_freq" for each physical core on platform during the high memory access pressure from
stress-ng, and the output is as follows:
  0: 2699133     2: 2699942     4: 2698189     6: 2704347
  8: 2704009    10: 2696277    12: 2702016    14: 2701388
 16: 2700358    18: 2696741    20: 2700091    22: 2700122
 24: 2701713    26: 2702025    28: 2699816    30: 2700121
 32: 2700000    34: 2699788    36: 2698884    38: 2699109
 40: 2704494    42: 2698350    44: 2699997    46: 2701023
 48: 2703448    50: 2699501    52: 2700000    54: 2699999
 56: 2702645    58: 2696923    60: 2697718    62: 2700547
 64: 2700313    66: 2700000    68: 2699904    70: 2699259
 72: 2699511    74: 2700644    76: 2702201    78: 2700000
 80: 2700776    82: 2700364    84: 2702674    86: 2700255
 88: 2699886    90: 2700359    92: 2699662    94: 2696188
 96: 2705454    98: 2699260   100: 2701097   102: 2699630
104: 2700463   106: 2698408   108: 2697766   110: 2701181
112: 2699166   114: 2701804   116: 2701907   118: 2701973
120: 2699584   122: 2700474   124: 2700768   126: 2701963

Signed-off-by: Huisong Li <lihuisong@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
[snip]
.
.




[Index of Archives]     [Linux IBM ACPI]     [Linux Power Management]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux Laptop]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Device Mapper]     [Linux Resources]
  Powered by Linux