On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 10:39:18PM +0300, Stratos Karafotis wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 7:16 PM, Andreas Herrmann <aherrm...@suse.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 09:58:42PM +0300, Stratos Karafotis wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >> [ I 'm resending this message, because I think some recipients didn't
> >> receive
> >> it. ]
> >> On 16/09/2016 12:47 μμ, Andreas Herrmann wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 10:32:01AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> >> >> On 01-09-16, 15:21, Andreas Herrmann wrote:
> >> >>> On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 11:31:53AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> >> > It seems that the decision how to best map load values to target
> >> > frequencies is kind of hardware specific.
> >> >
> >> > Maybe a solution to this is that the cpufreq driver should be able to
> >> > provide a mapping function to overwrite the current default
> >> > calculation.
FYI, I've created new patches to address the issue.
First one will be to introduce a map_load_to_freq function. The
default being what commit 6393d6 introduced (no deadband). Second
patch will than introduce a specific function for pcc-cpufreq to fall
back to what was used before commit 6393d6.
I just want to assemble gathered performance data and I am planning to
send those patches tomorrow.
> >> I'm not familiar with ppc-cpufreq drive but maybe patch 6393d6 just
> >> uncovered an "issue" that was already existed but only on higher loads.
> >> Because, with or without patch 6393d6, if the specific CPU doesn't
> >> use a frequency table, there will many frequency transitions in
> >> higher loads too. I believe, though, that the side effect it's smaller
> >> in higher frequencies because CPUs tend to work on lowest and highest
> >> frequencies.
> > Might be. I didn't test this specifically.
Hopefully I'll also find time to gather some ftrace data wrt this.
> >> What about a patch in ppc-cpufreq driver that permits frequency
> >> changes only in specific steps and not in arbitrary values?
> > Which steps would you use? What scheme would be universal usable for
> > all affected system using this driver?
> Just an idea. I would split the frequency range (max_freq - min_freq)
> into ~10 steps. But I'm not familiar with the affected systems and
> of course I can't prove this is an ideal approach.
I've modified the pcc-cpufreq specific map_load_to_freq function to do
just that (map load values to 10 discrete frequency values) instead of
falling back to the deadband (pre-commit-6393d6-version).
Unfortunately this resulted in lower performance compared to
> > I had played with an approach to only make use of min_freq and
> > max_freq which eventually didn't result in better performance
> > in comparison to code before commit 6393d6.