| Message ID | 1571776465-29763-1-git-send-email-thara.gopinath@linaro.org |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | Introduce Thermal Pressure | expand |
Hi Thara, On 22/10/2019 22:34, Thara Gopinath 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 unware 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, > 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. > > 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% > > Dhrystone Run Time : 20 threads, 3000 MLOOPS > Result SD > (Secs) (% of mean) > No Thermal Pressure 9.452 4.49% > Thermal Pressure PELT Algo. Decay : 32 ms 8.793 5.30% > Thermal Pressure PELT Algo. Decay : 64 ms 8.981 5.29% > Thermal Pressure PELT Algo. Decay : 128 ms 8.647 6.62% > Thermal Pressure PELT Algo. Decay : 256 ms 8.774 6.45% > Thermal Pressure PELT Algo. Decay : 512 ms 8.603 5.41% I took the opportunity to try glmark2 on the db845c platform with the default decay and got the following glmark2 scores: Without thermal pressure: # NumSamples = 9; Min = 790.00; Max = 805.00 # Mean = 794.888889; Variance = 19.209877; SD = 4.382907; Median 794.000000 # each ∎ represents a count of 1 790.0000 - 791.5000 [ 2]: ∎∎ 791.5000 - 793.0000 [ 2]: ∎∎ 793.0000 - 794.5000 [ 2]: ∎∎ 794.5000 - 796.0000 [ 1]: ∎ 796.0000 - 797.5000 [ 0]: 797.5000 - 799.0000 [ 1]: ∎ 799.0000 - 800.5000 [ 0]: 800.5000 - 802.0000 [ 0]: 802.0000 - 803.5000 [ 0]: 803.5000 - 805.0000 [ 1]: ∎ With thermal pressure: # NumSamples = 9; Min = 933.00; Max = 960.00 # Mean = 940.777778; Variance = 64.172840; SD = 8.010795; Median 937.000000 # each ∎ represents a count of 1 933.0000 - 935.7000 [ 3]: ∎∎∎ 935.7000 - 938.4000 [ 2]: ∎∎ 938.4000 - 941.1000 [ 2]: ∎∎ 941.1000 - 943.8000 [ 0]: 943.8000 - 946.5000 [ 0]: 946.5000 - 949.2000 [ 1]: ∎ 949.2000 - 951.9000 [ 0]: 951.9000 - 954.6000 [ 0]: 954.6000 - 957.3000 [ 0]: 957.3000 - 960.0000 [ 1]: ∎ -- <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook | <http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter | <http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
Hi Thara, On Tuesday 22 Oct 2019 at 16:34:19 (-0400), Thara Gopinath 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 unware of maximum capacity Nit: s/unware/unaware > 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, > 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 please share the changes you've made to sdm845.dtsi and a kernel base on top of which to apply your patches? I would like to reproduce your results and run more tests and it would be good if our setups were as close as possible. > 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% > > Dhrystone Run Time : 20 threads, 3000 MLOOPS > Result SD > (Secs) (% of mean) > No Thermal Pressure 9.452 4.49% > Thermal Pressure PELT Algo. Decay : 32 ms 8.793 5.30% > Thermal Pressure PELT Algo. Decay : 64 ms 8.981 5.29% > Thermal Pressure PELT Algo. Decay : 128 ms 8.647 6.62% > Thermal Pressure PELT Algo. Decay : 256 ms 8.774 6.45% > Thermal Pressure PELT Algo. Decay : 512 ms 8.603 5.41% > Do you happen to know by how much the CPUs were capped during these experiments? Thanks, Ionela. > A Brief History > > The first version of this patch-series was posted with resuing > PELT algorithm to decay thermal pressure signal. The discussions > that followed were around whether intanteneous thermal pressure > solution is better and whether a stand-alone algortihm to accumulate > and decay thermal pressure is more appropriate than re-using the > PELT framework. > Tests on Hikey960 showed the stand-alone algorithm performing slightly > better than resuing PELT algorithm and V2 was posted with the stand > alone algorithm. Test results were shared as part of this series. > Discussions were around re-using PELT algorithm and running > further tests with more granular decay period. > > For some time after this development was impeded due to hardware > unavailability, some other unforseen and possibly unfortunate events. > For this version, h/w was switched from hikey960 to db845c. > Also Instantaneous thermal pressure was never tested as part of this > cycle as it is clear that weighted average is a better implementation. > The non-PELT algorithm never gave any conclusive results to prove that it > is better than reusing PELT algorithm, in this round of testing. > Also reusing PELT algorithm means thermal pressure tracks the > other utilization signals in the scheduler. > > v3->v4: > - "Patch 3/7:sched: Initialize per cpu thermal pressure structure" > is dropped as it is no longer needed following changes in other > other patches. > - rest of the change log mentioned in specific patches. > > Thara Gopinath (6): > sched/pelt.c: Add support to track thermal pressure > sched: Add infrastructure to store and update instantaneous thermal > pressure > sched/fair: Enable CFS periodic tick to update thermal pressure > sched/fair: update cpu_capcity to reflect thermal pressure > thermal/cpu-cooling: Update thermal pressure in case of a maximum > frequency capping > sched: thermal: Enable tuning of decay period > > Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt | 5 ++ > drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c | 31 ++++++++++- > include/linux/sched.h | 8 +++ > kernel/sched/Makefile | 2 +- > kernel/sched/fair.c | 6 +++ > kernel/sched/pelt.c | 13 +++++ > kernel/sched/pelt.h | 7 +++ > kernel/sched/sched.h | 1 + > kernel/sched/thermal.c | 68 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ > kernel/sched/thermal.h | 13 +++++ > 10 files changed, 151 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > create mode 100644 kernel/sched/thermal.c > create mode 100644 kernel/sched/thermal.h > > -- > 2.1.4 >
Hi Daniel, On Tuesday 29 Oct 2019 at 16:34:11 (+0100), Daniel Lezcano wrote: > Hi Thara, > > On 22/10/2019 22:34, Thara Gopinath 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 unware 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, > > 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. > > > > 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% > > > > Dhrystone Run Time : 20 threads, 3000 MLOOPS > > Result SD > > (Secs) (% of mean) > > No Thermal Pressure 9.452 4.49% > > Thermal Pressure PELT Algo. Decay : 32 ms 8.793 5.30% > > Thermal Pressure PELT Algo. Decay : 64 ms 8.981 5.29% > > Thermal Pressure PELT Algo. Decay : 128 ms 8.647 6.62% > > Thermal Pressure PELT Algo. Decay : 256 ms 8.774 6.45% > > Thermal Pressure PELT Algo. Decay : 512 ms 8.603 5.41% > > I took the opportunity to try glmark2 on the db845c platform with the > default decay and got the following glmark2 scores: > > Without thermal pressure: > > # NumSamples = 9; Min = 790.00; Max = 805.00 > # Mean = 794.888889; Variance = 19.209877; SD = 4.382907; Median 794.000000 > # each ∎ represents a count of 1 > 790.0000 - 791.5000 [ 2]: ∎∎ > 791.5000 - 793.0000 [ 2]: ∎∎ > 793.0000 - 794.5000 [ 2]: ∎∎ > 794.5000 - 796.0000 [ 1]: ∎ > 796.0000 - 797.5000 [ 0]: > 797.5000 - 799.0000 [ 1]: ∎ > 799.0000 - 800.5000 [ 0]: > 800.5000 - 802.0000 [ 0]: > 802.0000 - 803.5000 [ 0]: > 803.5000 - 805.0000 [ 1]: ∎ > > > With thermal pressure: > > # NumSamples = 9; Min = 933.00; Max = 960.00 > # Mean = 940.777778; Variance = 64.172840; SD = 8.010795; Median 937.000000 > # each ∎ represents a count of 1 > 933.0000 - 935.7000 [ 3]: ∎∎∎ > 935.7000 - 938.4000 [ 2]: ∎∎ > 938.4000 - 941.1000 [ 2]: ∎∎ > 941.1000 - 943.8000 [ 0]: > 943.8000 - 946.5000 [ 0]: > 946.5000 - 949.2000 [ 1]: ∎ > 949.2000 - 951.9000 [ 0]: > 951.9000 - 954.6000 [ 0]: > 954.6000 - 957.3000 [ 0]: > 957.3000 - 960.0000 [ 1]: ∎ > Interesting! If I'm interpreting these correctly there seems to be significant improvement when applying thermal pressure. I'm not familiar with glmark2, can you tell me more about the process and the work that the benchmark does? I assume this is a GPU benchmark, but not knowing more about it I fail to see the correlation between applying thermal pressure to CPU capacities and the improvement of GPU performance. Do you happen to know more about the behaviour that resulted in these benchmark scores? Thanks, Ionela. > > > -- > <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs > > Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook | > <http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter | > <http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog >
Hi Ionela, On 31/10/2019 11:07, Ionela Voinescu wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > On Tuesday 29 Oct 2019 at 16:34:11 (+0100), Daniel Lezcano wrote: >> Hi Thara, >> >> On 22/10/2019 22:34, Thara Gopinath 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 unware 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, >>> 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. >>> >>> 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% >>> >>> Dhrystone Run Time : 20 threads, 3000 MLOOPS >>> Result SD >>> (Secs) (% of mean) >>> No Thermal Pressure 9.452 4.49% >>> Thermal Pressure PELT Algo. Decay : 32 ms 8.793 5.30% >>> Thermal Pressure PELT Algo. Decay : 64 ms 8.981 5.29% >>> Thermal Pressure PELT Algo. Decay : 128 ms 8.647 6.62% >>> Thermal Pressure PELT Algo. Decay : 256 ms 8.774 6.45% >>> Thermal Pressure PELT Algo. Decay : 512 ms 8.603 5.41% >> >> I took the opportunity to try glmark2 on the db845c platform with the >> default decay and got the following glmark2 scores: >> >> Without thermal pressure: >> >> # NumSamples = 9; Min = 790.00; Max = 805.00 >> # Mean = 794.888889; Variance = 19.209877; SD = 4.382907; Median 794.000000 >> # each ∎ represents a count of 1 >> 790.0000 - 791.5000 [ 2]: ∎∎ >> 791.5000 - 793.0000 [ 2]: ∎∎ >> 793.0000 - 794.5000 [ 2]: ∎∎ >> 794.5000 - 796.0000 [ 1]: ∎ >> 796.0000 - 797.5000 [ 0]: >> 797.5000 - 799.0000 [ 1]: ∎ >> 799.0000 - 800.5000 [ 0]: >> 800.5000 - 802.0000 [ 0]: >> 802.0000 - 803.5000 [ 0]: >> 803.5000 - 805.0000 [ 1]: ∎ >> >> >> With thermal pressure: >> >> # NumSamples = 9; Min = 933.00; Max = 960.00 >> # Mean = 940.777778; Variance = 64.172840; SD = 8.010795; Median 937.000000 >> # each ∎ represents a count of 1 >> 933.0000 - 935.7000 [ 3]: ∎∎∎ >> 935.7000 - 938.4000 [ 2]: ∎∎ >> 938.4000 - 941.1000 [ 2]: ∎∎ >> 941.1000 - 943.8000 [ 0]: >> 943.8000 - 946.5000 [ 0]: >> 946.5000 - 949.2000 [ 1]: ∎ >> 949.2000 - 951.9000 [ 0]: >> 951.9000 - 954.6000 [ 0]: >> 954.6000 - 957.3000 [ 0]: >> 957.3000 - 960.0000 [ 1]: ∎ >> > > Interesting! If I'm interpreting these correctly there seems to be > significant improvement when applying thermal pressure. > > I'm not familiar with glmark2, can you tell me more about the process > and the work that the benchmark does? glmark2 is a 3D benchmark. I ran it without parameters, so all tests are run. At the end, it gives a score which are the values given above. > I assume this is a GPU benchmark, > but not knowing more about it I fail to see the correlation between > applying thermal pressure to CPU capacities and the improvement of GPU > performance. > Do you happen to know more about the behaviour that resulted in these > benchmark scores? My hypothesis is glmark2 makes the GPU to contribute a lot to the heating effect, thus increasing the temperature to the CPU close to it. -- <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook | <http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter | <http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
On Thursday 31 Oct 2019 at 12:54:03 (+0100), Daniel Lezcano wrote: > Hi Ionela, > > On 31/10/2019 11:07, Ionela Voinescu wrote: > > Hi Daniel, > > > > On Tuesday 29 Oct 2019 at 16:34:11 (+0100), Daniel Lezcano wrote: > >> Hi Thara, > >> > >> On 22/10/2019 22:34, Thara Gopinath 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 unware 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, > >>> 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. > >>> > >>> 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% > >>> > >>> Dhrystone Run Time : 20 threads, 3000 MLOOPS > >>> Result SD > >>> (Secs) (% of mean) > >>> No Thermal Pressure 9.452 4.49% > >>> Thermal Pressure PELT Algo. Decay : 32 ms 8.793 5.30% > >>> Thermal Pressure PELT Algo. Decay : 64 ms 8.981 5.29% > >>> Thermal Pressure PELT Algo. Decay : 128 ms 8.647 6.62% > >>> Thermal Pressure PELT Algo. Decay : 256 ms 8.774 6.45% > >>> Thermal Pressure PELT Algo. Decay : 512 ms 8.603 5.41% > >> > >> I took the opportunity to try glmark2 on the db845c platform with the > >> default decay and got the following glmark2 scores: > >> > >> Without thermal pressure: > >> > >> # NumSamples = 9; Min = 790.00; Max = 805.00 > >> # Mean = 794.888889; Variance = 19.209877; SD = 4.382907; Median 794.000000 > >> # each ∎ represents a count of 1 > >> 790.0000 - 791.5000 [ 2]: ∎∎ > >> 791.5000 - 793.0000 [ 2]: ∎∎ > >> 793.0000 - 794.5000 [ 2]: ∎∎ > >> 794.5000 - 796.0000 [ 1]: ∎ > >> 796.0000 - 797.5000 [ 0]: > >> 797.5000 - 799.0000 [ 1]: ∎ > >> 799.0000 - 800.5000 [ 0]: > >> 800.5000 - 802.0000 [ 0]: > >> 802.0000 - 803.5000 [ 0]: > >> 803.5000 - 805.0000 [ 1]: ∎ > >> > >> > >> With thermal pressure: > >> > >> # NumSamples = 9; Min = 933.00; Max = 960.00 > >> # Mean = 940.777778; Variance = 64.172840; SD = 8.010795; Median 937.000000 > >> # each ∎ represents a count of 1 > >> 933.0000 - 935.7000 [ 3]: ∎∎∎ > >> 935.7000 - 938.4000 [ 2]: ∎∎ > >> 938.4000 - 941.1000 [ 2]: ∎∎ > >> 941.1000 - 943.8000 [ 0]: > >> 943.8000 - 946.5000 [ 0]: > >> 946.5000 - 949.2000 [ 1]: ∎ > >> 949.2000 - 951.9000 [ 0]: > >> 951.9000 - 954.6000 [ 0]: > >> 954.6000 - 957.3000 [ 0]: > >> 957.3000 - 960.0000 [ 1]: ∎ > >> > > > > Interesting! If I'm interpreting these correctly there seems to be > > significant improvement when applying thermal pressure. > > > > I'm not familiar with glmark2, can you tell me more about the process > > and the work that the benchmark does? > > glmark2 is a 3D benchmark. I ran it without parameters, so all tests are > run. At the end, it gives a score which are the values given above. > > > I assume this is a GPU benchmark, > > but not knowing more about it I fail to see the correlation between > > applying thermal pressure to CPU capacities and the improvement of GPU > > performance. > > Do you happen to know more about the behaviour that resulted in these > > benchmark scores? > > My hypothesis is glmark2 makes the GPU to contribute a lot to the > heating effect, thus increasing the temperature to the CPU close to it. > Hhmm.. yes, I am assuming that there is some thermal mitigation (CPU frequency capping) done as a result of the heat inflicted by the work on the GPU, but these patches do not result in better thermal management as for the GPU to perform better. They only inform the scheduler in regards to reduced capacity of CPUs so it can decide to better use the compute capacity that it has available. There could be a second hand effect of the more efficient use of the CPUs which would release thermal headroom for the GPU to use, but I would not expect the differences to be as high as in the results above. Another possibility is that work on the CPUs impacts the scores more than I would expect for such a benchmark but again I would not expect the work on the CPUs to be significant as to result in such differences in the scores. If you have the chance to look more into exactly what is the behaviour, with and without thermal pressure - cooling states, average frequency, use of CPUs, use of GPU, etc, it would be very valuable. Thank you, Ionela. > > > > -- > <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs > > Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook | > <http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter | > <http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog >
On 10/31/2019 05:44 AM, Ionela Voinescu wrote: > Hi Thara, > > On Tuesday 22 Oct 2019 at 16:34:19 (-0400), Thara Gopinath 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 unware of maximum capacity > > Nit: s/unware/unaware > >> 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, >> 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 please share the changes you've made to sdm845.dtsi and a kernel > base on top of which to apply your patches? I would like to reproduce > your results and run more tests and it would be good if our setups were > as close as possible. Hi Ionela Thank you for the review. So I tested this on 5.4-rc1 kernel. The dtsi changes is to reduce the thermal trip points for the big CPUs to 60000 or 70000 from the default 90000. I did this for 2 reasons 1. I could never get the db845 to heat up sufficiently for my test cases with the default trip. 2. I was using the default step-wise governor for thermal. I did not want little and big to start throttling by the same % because then the task placement ratio will remain the same between little and big cores. > >> 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% >> >> Dhrystone Run Time : 20 threads, 3000 MLOOPS >> Result SD >> (Secs) (% of mean) >> No Thermal Pressure 9.452 4.49% >> Thermal Pressure PELT Algo. Decay : 32 ms 8.793 5.30% >> Thermal Pressure PELT Algo. Decay : 64 ms 8.981 5.29% >> Thermal Pressure PELT Algo. Decay : 128 ms 8.647 6.62% >> Thermal Pressure PELT Algo. Decay : 256 ms 8.774 6.45% >> Thermal Pressure PELT Algo. Decay : 512 ms 8.603 5.41% >> > > Do you happen to know by how much the CPUs were capped during these > experiments? I don't have any captured results here. I know that big cores were capped and at times there was capacity inversion. Also I will fix the nit comments above. > > Thanks, > Ionela. > -- Warm Regards Thara
On 10/31/2019 12:41 PM, Thara Gopinath wrote: > On 10/31/2019 05:44 AM, Ionela Voinescu wrote: >> Hi Thara, >> >> On Tuesday 22 Oct 2019 at 16:34:19 (-0400), Thara Gopinath 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 unware of maximum capacity >> >> Nit: s/unware/unaware >> >>> 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, >>> 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 please share the changes you've made to sdm845.dtsi and a kernel >> base on top of which to apply your patches? I would like to reproduce >> your results and run more tests and it would be good if our setups were >> as close as possible. > Hi Ionela > Thank you for the review. > So I tested this on 5.4-rc1 kernel. The dtsi changes is to reduce the > thermal trip points for the big CPUs to 60000 or 70000 from the default > 90000. I did this for 2 reasons > 1. I could never get the db845 to heat up sufficiently for my test cases > with the default trip. > 2. I was using the default step-wise governor for thermal. I did not > want little and big to start throttling by the same % because then the > task placement ratio will remain the same between little and big cores. > So I am not sure though if this is the set up under which Daniel ran glbench . I will let him comment on it. > > > -- Warm Regards Thara
On 31/10/2019 13:57, Ionela Voinescu wrote: > On Thursday 31 Oct 2019 at 12:54:03 (+0100), Daniel Lezcano wrote: >> Hi Ionela, >> >> On 31/10/2019 11:07, Ionela Voinescu wrote: >>> Hi Daniel, >>> >>> On Tuesday 29 Oct 2019 at 16:34:11 (+0100), Daniel Lezcano wrote: >>>> Hi Thara, >>>> >>>> On 22/10/2019 22:34, Thara Gopinath 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 unware 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, >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> 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% >>>>> >>>>> Dhrystone Run Time : 20 threads, 3000 MLOOPS >>>>> Result SD >>>>> (Secs) (% of mean) >>>>> No Thermal Pressure 9.452 4.49% >>>>> Thermal Pressure PELT Algo. Decay : 32 ms 8.793 5.30% >>>>> Thermal Pressure PELT Algo. Decay : 64 ms 8.981 5.29% >>>>> Thermal Pressure PELT Algo. Decay : 128 ms 8.647 6.62% >>>>> Thermal Pressure PELT Algo. Decay : 256 ms 8.774 6.45% >>>>> Thermal Pressure PELT Algo. Decay : 512 ms 8.603 5.41% >>>> >>>> I took the opportunity to try glmark2 on the db845c platform with the >>>> default decay and got the following glmark2 scores: >>>> >>>> Without thermal pressure: >>>> >>>> # NumSamples = 9; Min = 790.00; Max = 805.00 >>>> # Mean = 794.888889; Variance = 19.209877; SD = 4.382907; Median 794.000000 >>>> # each ∎ represents a count of 1 >>>> 790.0000 - 791.5000 [ 2]: ∎∎ >>>> 791.5000 - 793.0000 [ 2]: ∎∎ >>>> 793.0000 - 794.5000 [ 2]: ∎∎ >>>> 794.5000 - 796.0000 [ 1]: ∎ >>>> 796.0000 - 797.5000 [ 0]: >>>> 797.5000 - 799.0000 [ 1]: ∎ >>>> 799.0000 - 800.5000 [ 0]: >>>> 800.5000 - 802.0000 [ 0]: >>>> 802.0000 - 803.5000 [ 0]: >>>> 803.5000 - 805.0000 [ 1]: ∎ >>>> >>>> >>>> With thermal pressure: >>>> >>>> # NumSamples = 9; Min = 933.00; Max = 960.00 >>>> # Mean = 940.777778; Variance = 64.172840; SD = 8.010795; Median 937.000000 >>>> # each ∎ represents a count of 1 >>>> 933.0000 - 935.7000 [ 3]: ∎∎∎ >>>> 935.7000 - 938.4000 [ 2]: ∎∎ >>>> 938.4000 - 941.1000 [ 2]: ∎∎ >>>> 941.1000 - 943.8000 [ 0]: >>>> 943.8000 - 946.5000 [ 0]: >>>> 946.5000 - 949.2000 [ 1]: ∎ >>>> 949.2000 - 951.9000 [ 0]: >>>> 951.9000 - 954.6000 [ 0]: >>>> 954.6000 - 957.3000 [ 0]: >>>> 957.3000 - 960.0000 [ 1]: ∎ >>>> >>> >>> Interesting! If I'm interpreting these correctly there seems to be >>> significant improvement when applying thermal pressure. >>> >>> I'm not familiar with glmark2, can you tell me more about the process >>> and the work that the benchmark does? >> >> glmark2 is a 3D benchmark. I ran it without parameters, so all tests are >> run. At the end, it gives a score which are the values given above. >> >>> I assume this is a GPU benchmark, >>> but not knowing more about it I fail to see the correlation between >>> applying thermal pressure to CPU capacities and the improvement of GPU >>> performance. >>> Do you happen to know more about the behaviour that resulted in these >>> benchmark scores? >> >> My hypothesis is glmark2 makes the GPU to contribute a lot to the >> heating effect, thus increasing the temperature to the CPU close to it. >> > > Hhmm.. yes, I am assuming that there is some thermal mitigation (CPU > frequency capping) done as a result of the heat inflicted by the work > on the GPU, but these patches do not result in better thermal > management as for the GPU to perform better. They only inform the > scheduler in regards to reduced capacity of CPUs so it can decide to > better use the compute capacity that it has available. > > There could be a second hand effect of the more efficient use of the > CPUs which would release thermal headroom for the GPU to use, but I > would not expect the differences to be as high as in the results above. Indeed, you may be right. > Another possibility is that work on the CPUs impacts the scores more > than I would expect for such a benchmark but again I would not > expect the work on the CPUs to be significant as to result in such > differences in the scores. > > If you have the chance to look more into exactly what is the behaviour, > with and without thermal pressure - cooling states, average frequency, > use of CPUs, use of GPU, etc, it would be very valuable. Not sure I have enough bandwidth to do all. I'll double check if there is a difference when testing both versions. -- <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook | <http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter | <http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
Hi Thara, On Thursday 31 Oct 2019 at 12:41:20 (-0400), Thara Gopinath wrote: [...] > >> 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, > >> 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 please share the changes you've made to sdm845.dtsi and a kernel > > base on top of which to apply your patches? I would like to reproduce > > your results and run more tests and it would be good if our setups were > > as close as possible. > Hi Ionela > Thank you for the review. > So I tested this on 5.4-rc1 kernel. The dtsi changes is to reduce the > thermal trip points for the big CPUs to 60000 or 70000 from the default > 90000. I did this for 2 reasons > 1. I could never get the db845 to heat up sufficiently for my test cases > with the default trip. > 2. I was using the default step-wise governor for thermal. I did not > want little and big to start throttling by the same % because then the > task placement ratio will remain the same between little and big cores. > > Some early testing on this showed that when setting the trip point to 60000 for the big CPUs and the big cluster, and running hackbench (1 group, 30000 loops) the cooling state of the big cluster results in always being set to the maximum (the lowest OPP), which results in capacity inversion (almost) continuously. For 70000 the average cooling state of the bigs is around 20 so it will leave a few more OPPs available on the bigs more of the time, but probably the capacity of bigs is mostly lower than the capacity of little CPUs, during this test as well. I think that explains the difference in results that you obtained below. This is good as it shows that thermal pressure is useful but it shouldn't show much difference between the different decay periods, as can also be observed in your results below. This being said, I did not obtained such significant results on my side by I'll try again with the kernel you've pointed me to offline. Thanks, Ionela. > > > >> 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% > >> > >> Dhrystone Run Time : 20 threads, 3000 MLOOPS > >> Result SD > >> (Secs) (% of mean) > >> No Thermal Pressure 9.452 4.49% > >> Thermal Pressure PELT Algo. Decay : 32 ms 8.793 5.30% > >> Thermal Pressure PELT Algo. Decay : 64 ms 8.981 5.29% > >> Thermal Pressure PELT Algo. Decay : 128 ms 8.647 6.62% > >> Thermal Pressure PELT Algo. Decay : 256 ms 8.774 6.45% > >> Thermal Pressure PELT Algo. Decay : 512 ms 8.603 5.41% > >> > > > > Do you happen to know by how much the CPUs were capped during these > > experiments? > > I don't have any captured results here. I know that big cores were > capped and at times there was capacity inversion. > > Also I will fix the nit comments above. > > > > > Thanks, > > Ionela. > > > > > > -- > Warm Regards > Thara
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 unware 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, 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. 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% Dhrystone Run Time : 20 threads, 3000 MLOOPS Result SD (Secs) (% of mean) No Thermal Pressure 9.452 4.49% Thermal Pressure PELT Algo. Decay : 32 ms 8.793 5.30% Thermal Pressure PELT Algo. Decay : 64 ms 8.981 5.29% Thermal Pressure PELT Algo. Decay : 128 ms 8.647 6.62% Thermal Pressure PELT Algo. Decay : 256 ms 8.774 6.45% Thermal Pressure PELT Algo. Decay : 512 ms 8.603 5.41% A Brief History The first version of this patch-series was posted with resuing PELT algorithm to decay thermal pressure signal. The discussions that followed were around whether intanteneous thermal pressure solution is better and whether a stand-alone algortihm to accumulate and decay thermal pressure is more appropriate than re-using the PELT framework. Tests on Hikey960 showed the stand-alone algorithm performing slightly better than resuing PELT algorithm and V2 was posted with the stand alone algorithm. Test results were shared as part of this series. Discussions were around re-using PELT algorithm and running further tests with more granular decay period. For some time after this development was impeded due to hardware unavailability, some other unforseen and possibly unfortunate events. For this version, h/w was switched from hikey960 to db845c. Also Instantaneous thermal pressure was never tested as part of this cycle as it is clear that weighted average is a better implementation. The non-PELT algorithm never gave any conclusive results to prove that it is better than reusing PELT algorithm, in this round of testing. Also reusing PELT algorithm means thermal pressure tracks the other utilization signals in the scheduler. v3->v4: - "Patch 3/7:sched: Initialize per cpu thermal pressure structure" is dropped as it is no longer needed following changes in other other patches. - rest of the change log mentioned in specific patches. Thara Gopinath (6): sched/pelt.c: Add support to track thermal pressure sched: Add infrastructure to store and update instantaneous thermal pressure sched/fair: Enable CFS periodic tick to update thermal pressure sched/fair: update cpu_capcity to reflect thermal pressure thermal/cpu-cooling: Update thermal pressure in case of a maximum frequency capping sched: thermal: Enable tuning of decay period Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt | 5 ++ drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c | 31 ++++++++++- include/linux/sched.h | 8 +++ kernel/sched/Makefile | 2 +- kernel/sched/fair.c | 6 +++ kernel/sched/pelt.c | 13 +++++ kernel/sched/pelt.h | 7 +++ kernel/sched/sched.h | 1 + kernel/sched/thermal.c | 68 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ kernel/sched/thermal.h | 13 +++++ 10 files changed, 151 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) create mode 100644 kernel/sched/thermal.c create mode 100644 kernel/sched/thermal.h -- 2.1.4