On 08-05-18, 22:54, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 8:42 AM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > The schedutil driver sets sg_policy->next_freq to UINT_MAX on certain
> > occasions:
> > - In sugov_start(), when the schedutil governor is started for a group
> > of CPUs.
> > - And whenever we need to force a freq update before rate-limit
> > duration, which happens when:
> > - there is an update in cpufreq policy limits.
> > - Or when the utilization of DL scheduling class increases.
> >
> > In return, get_next_freq() doesn't return a cached next_freq value but
> > instead recalculates the next frequency. This has some side effects
> > though and may significantly delay a required increase in frequency.
> >
> > In sugov_update_single() we try to avoid decreasing frequency if the CPU
> > has not been idle recently. Consider this scenario, the available range
> > of frequencies for a CPU are from 800 MHz to 2.5 GHz and current
> > frequency is 800 MHz. From one of the call paths
> > sg_policy->need_freq_update is set to true and hence
> > sg_policy->next_freq is set to UINT_MAX. Now if the CPU had been busy,
> > next_f will always be less than UINT_MAX, whatever the value of next_f
> > is. And so even when we wanted to increase the frequency, we will
> > overwrite next_f with UINT_MAX and will not change the frequency
> > eventually. This will continue until the time CPU stays busy. This isn't
> > cross checked with any specific test cases, but rather based on general
> > code review.
> >
> > Fix that by not resetting the sg_policy->need_freq_update flag from
> > sugov_should_update_freq() but get_next_freq() and we wouldn't need to
> > overwrite sg_policy->next_freq anymore.
> >
> > Cc: 4.12+ <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # 4.12+
> > Fixes: b7eaf1aab9f8 ("cpufreq: schedutil: Avoid reducing frequency of busy CPUs prematurely")
>
> The rest of the chantelog is totally disconnected from this commit.
I added the "Fixes" tag because this is exactly the commit after which
this problem started, isn't it?
> So the problem is that sugov_update_single() doesn't check the special
> UNIT_MAX value before assigning sg_policy->next_freq to next_f. Fair
> enough.
>
> I don't see why the patch is the right fix for that, however.
I thought not overwriting next_freq makes things much simpler and easy
to review. What else do you have in mind to solve this problem ?
--
viresh
