On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 12:36 AM Michael Larabel <Michael@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 2/3/21 12:25 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 3, 2021 3:11:37 PM CET Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 2:53 PM Giovanni Gherdovich <ggherdovich@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> [cut]
> >>
> >>> Fixes: 41ea667227ba ("x86, sched: Calculate frequency invariance for AMD systems")
> >>> Fixes: 976df7e5730e ("x86, sched: Use midpoint of max_boost and max_P for frequency invariance on AMD EPYC")
> >>> Reported-by: Michael Larabel <Michael@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> Tested-by: Michael Larabel <Michael@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Giovanni Gherdovich <ggherdovich@xxxxxxx>
> >>> ---
> >>> drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c | 61 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> >>> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 3 ++
> >>> include/linux/cpufreq.h | 5 +++
> >>> kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c | 8 +++--
> >> I don't really think that it is necessary to modify schedutil to
> >> address this issue.
> > So below is a prototype of an alternative fix for the issue at hand.
> >
> > I can't really test it here, because there's no _CPC in the ACPI tables of my
> > test machines, so testing it would be appreciated. However, AFAICS these
> > machines are affected by the performance issue related to the scale-invariance
> > when they are running acpi-cpufreq, so what we are doing here is not entirely
> > sufficient.
>
>
> I have benchmarks running on several Ryzen and EPYC systems with this
> patch. The full batch of tests won't be done until tomorrow, but in
> looking at the data so far from an AMD EPYC 7F72 2P server over the past
> few hours, this patch does provide fairly comparable numbers to
> Giovanni's patch. There were a few outliers so far but waiting to see
> with the complete set of results. At the very least it's clear enough
> already this new patch is at least an improvement over the current 5.11
> upstream state with schedutil on AMD.
Thanks for the feedback, much appreciated!
Let me submit the patch properly, then.
