Re: [PATCH v1] Revert "cpufreq: schedutil: Move max CPU capacity to sugov_policy"

[Lukasz Luba]

Hi Viresh,

On 12/5/22 09:18, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> Lukasz,
>
> On 10-11-22, 19:57, Sam Wu wrote:
> > diff --git a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> > index 9161d1136d01..1207c78f85c1 100644
> > --- a/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> > +++ b/kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c
> > @@ -25,9 +25,6 @@ struct sugov_policy {
> >   	unsigned int		next_freq;
> >   	unsigned int		cached_raw_freq;
> >   
> > -	/* max CPU capacity, which is equal for all CPUs in freq. domain */
> > -	unsigned long		max;
> > -
> >   	/* The next fields are only needed if fast switch cannot be used: */
> >   	struct			irq_work irq_work;
> >   	struct			kthread_work work;
> > @@ -51,6 +48,7 @@ struct sugov_cpu {
> >   
> >   	unsigned long		util;
> >   	unsigned long		bw_dl;
> > +	unsigned long		max;
>
> IIUC, this part, i.e. moving max to sugov_policy, wasn't the problem
> here, right ? Can you send a patch for that at least first, since this
> is fully reverted now.
>
> Or it doesn't make sense?

Yes, that still could make sense. We could still optimize a bit that
code in the sugov_next_freq_shared(). Look at that function. It loops
over all CPUs in the policy and calls sugov_get_util() which calls
this arch_scale_cpu_capacity() N times. Then it does those
multiplications below:

if (j_util * max > j_max * util)

which will be 2*N mul operations...
IMO this is pointless and heavy for LITTLE cores which are 4 or
sometimes 6 in the policy.

As you could see, my code just left that loop with a simple
max() operation.

I might just attack this code differently. Switch to that
sugov_policy::max, fetch the cpu capacity only once, before that loop.
I will rewrite a bit the sugov_get_util() and adjust the
2nd user of it: sugov_update_single_common()

Regards,
Lukasz