On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 09:40:38PM +0100, Giovanni Gherdovich wrote:
> This workload is constant in time, so instead of using the PELT sum we can
> pretend that scale invariance is obtained with
>
> util_inv = util_raw * freq_curr / freq_max1 [formula-1]
>
> where util_raw is the PELT util from v5.10 (which is to say, not invariant),
> and util_inv is the PELT util from v5.11-rc4. freq_max1 comes from
> commit 976df7e5730e ("x86, sched: Use midpoint of max_boost and max_P for
> frequency invariance on AMD EPYC") and is (P0+max_boost)/2 = (2.25+3.4)/2 =
> 2.825 GHz. Then we have the schedutil formula
>
> freq_next = 1.25 * freq_max2 * util_inv [formula-2]
>
> Here v5.11-rc4 uses freq_max2 = P0 = 2.25 GHz (and this patch changes it to
> 3.4 GHz).
>
> Since all cores are busy, there is no boost available. Let's be generous and say
> the tasks initially get P0, i.e. freq_curr = 2.25 GHz. Combining the formulas
> above and taking util_raw = 825/1024 = 0.8, freq_next is:
>
> freq_next = 1.25 * 2.25 * 0.8 * 2.25 / 2.825 = 1.79 GHz
Right, so here's a 'problem' between schedutil and cpufreq, they don't
use the same f_max at all times.
And this is also an inconsistency between acpi_cpufreq and intel_pstate
(passive). IIRC the intel_pstate cpufreq drivers uses 4C/1C/P0 resp,
while ACPI seems to stick to P0 f_max.
Rafael; should ACPI change that behaviour rather than adding yet another
magic variable?
