On Fri, Feb 01, 2019 at 12:34:32AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday, January 31, 2019 7:37:30 PM CET Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 11:14:03AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 11:07 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.ku...@linaro.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 31-01-19, 11:03, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 9:30 AM Viresh Kumar
> > > > > <viresh.ku...@linaro.org> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 30-01-19, 17:51, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> > > > > > > When fast switching is enabled currently no cpufreq stats are
> > > > > > > recorded and the corresponding sysfs attributes appear empty (see
> > > > > > > also commit 1aefc75b2449 ("cpufreq: stats: Make the stats code
> > > > > > > non-modular")).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Record the stats after a successful fast switch and re-enable
> > > > > > > access
> > > > > > > through sysfs when fast switching is enabled. Since
> > > > > > > cpufreq_stats_update() can now be called in interrupt context
> > > > > > > (during
> > > > > > > a fast switch) disable local IRQs while holding the stats
> > > > > > > spinlock.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Matthias Kaehlcke <m...@chromium.org>
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > The change is so simple that I wonder if I'm missing some
> > > > > > > important
> > > > > > > reason why the stats can't/shouldn't be updated during/after a
> > > > > > > fast
> > > > > > > switch ...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I would expect that holding the stats spinlock briefly in
> > > > > > > cpufreq_stats_update() shouldn't be a problem. In theory it would
> > > > > > > also be an option to have a per stats lock, though it seems
> > > > > > > overkill
> > > > > > > from my (possibly ignorant) point of view.
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 8 +++++++-
> > > > > > > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_stats.c | 11 +++--------
> > > > > > > 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > > > > > > index e35a886e00bcf..63aadb0bbddfe 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c
> > > > > > > @@ -1857,9 +1857,15 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(cpufreq_unregister_notifier);
> > > > > > > unsigned int cpufreq_driver_fast_switch(struct cpufreq_policy
> > > > > > > *policy,
> > > > > > > unsigned int target_freq)
> > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > + unsigned int freq;
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > target_freq = clamp_val(target_freq, policy->min,
> > > > > > > policy->max);
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - return cpufreq_driver->fast_switch(policy, target_freq);
> > > > > > > + freq = cpufreq_driver->fast_switch(policy, target_freq);
> > > > > > > + if (freq)
> > > > > > > + cpufreq_stats_record_transition(policy, freq);
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > + return freq;
> > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(cpufreq_driver_fast_switch);
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_stats.c
> > > > > > > b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_stats.c
> > > > > > > index 1572129844a5b..21b919bfaeccf 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_stats.c
> > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_stats.c
> > > > > > > @@ -30,11 +30,12 @@ struct cpufreq_stats {
> > > > > > > static void cpufreq_stats_update(struct cpufreq_stats *stats)
> > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > unsigned long long cur_time = get_jiffies_64();
> > > > > > > + unsigned long flags;
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - spin_lock(&cpufreq_stats_lock);
> > > > > > > + spin_lock_irqsave(&cpufreq_stats_lock, flags);
> > > > > > > stats->time_in_state[stats->last_index] += cur_time -
> > > > > > > stats->last_time;
> > > > > > > stats->last_time = cur_time;
> > > > > > > - spin_unlock(&cpufreq_stats_lock);
> > > > > > > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&cpufreq_stats_lock, flags);
> > > > > > > }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The only problem that I can think of (or recall) is that this
> > > > > > routine
> > > > > > also gets called when time_in_state sysfs file is read and that can
> > > > > > end up taking lock which the scheduler's hotpath will wait for.
> > > > >
> > > > > What about the extra locking overhead in the scheduler context?
> > > >
> > > > What about using READ_ONCE/WRITE_ONCE here ? Not sure if we really
> > > > need locking in this particular case.
> > >
> > > If that works, then fine, but ISTR some synchronization issues related to
> > > that.
> >
> > I also think there would be synchronization issues :(
> >
> > Is your main concern with the spin lock the contention case or the
> > general overhead of locking?
>
> The general overhead is bad enough. The contention case would be a
> disaster.
>
> > It would be really nice to have cpufreq stats with schedutil. We
> > initially considered a sysfs attribute to allow to temporarily disable
> > fast switching, but at closer sight this seems messy (would require
> > quite some rework in cpufreq_schedutil.c), besides not recording the
> > actual behavior.
> >
> > If another (rarely and only shortly held) lock in scheduler context
>
> This is a global spinlock and you'd like to take it on every frequency
> change for each policy. On x86, as a rule, there is a policy per logical
> CPU and systems with hundreds of these are not uncommon. Come on.
Thanks for helping me to get a better understanding of the problem. If
the global spinlock was the main issue, this could be fixed by having
a per stats/policy lock, but it seems there's more than that.
> > is a no-go deferred recording could be an option, if that can be
> > implemented without locks in scheduler context.
>
> Why do you need the stats at all in the fast switch case?
For the same reason as in the non-fast switch case, easy access to the
stats with existing tooling (or no tooling at all).
> There is the cpu_frequency tracepoint that can be used to callect
> all data that you need. Why can't that be used?
It could be used, but requires non-standard tooling to process the
data and tracing must be enabled.
Could a CONFIG option make sense to enable it (off by default),
or is the overhead (with a per stats lock) so high that it would be
unreasonable to use it (I really don't have a good sense on this)?
Thanks
Matthias
