PDS 0.98z is released with the following changes
1. Fix and improvement in the previous release.
2. Re-mapping SCHED_DEADLINE to SCHED_FIFO, which fix cpufreq_schedutil create kernel thread as SCHED_DEADLINE(thanks jwh7 for reporting)
This is a bug fix release. I'd like to let PDS stable for awhile in the incoming releases.
Enjoy PDS 0.98z for v4.18 kernel, :)
Code are available at https://gitlab.com/alfredchen/linux-pds
All-in-one patch is available too.
Built and installed fine for x64, but still getting the same messages:
ReplyDelete=====
$ dmesg |grep -e PDS -e cpufreq
[ 0.000000] pds: PDS-mq CPU Scheduler 0.98z by Alfred Chen.
[ 13.811218] cpufreq_schedutil: sugov_kthread_create: failed to set SCHED_DEADLINE
[ 13.811219] cpufreq_schedutil: initialization failed (error -22)
[ 13.811244] cpufreq: cpufreq_online: Failed to initialize policy for cpu: 0 (-22)
Let me know if you need me to check anything; here are some config params (note I expanded some of the schedutil stuff in trying to troubleshoot this):
=====
$ zcat /proc/config.gz|grep -e CPU.*FREQ -e DEADLINE -e FIFO
# CONFIG_IOSCHED_DEADLINE is not set
# CONFIG_MQ_IOSCHED_DEADLINE is not set
CONFIG_ACPI_CPU_FREQ_PSS=y
CONFIG_CPU_FREQ=y
CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_GOV_ATTR_SET=y
CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_STAT=y
# CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_DEFAULT_GOV_PERFORMANCE is not set
# CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_DEFAULT_GOV_POWERSAVE is not set
# CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_DEFAULT_GOV_USERSPACE is not set
# CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_DEFAULT_GOV_ONDEMAND is not set
# CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_DEFAULT_GOV_CONSERVATIVE is not set
CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_DEFAULT_GOV_SCHEDUTIL=y
CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_GOV_PERFORMANCE=y
# CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_GOV_POWERSAVE is not set
# CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_GOV_USERSPACE is not set
# CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_GOV_ONDEMAND is not set
# CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_GOV_CONSERVATIVE is not set
CONFIG_CPU_FREQ_GOV_SCHEDUTIL=y
CONFIG_X86_PCC_CPUFREQ=m
CONFIG_X86_ACPI_CPUFREQ=m
CONFIG_X86_ACPI_CPUFREQ_CPB=y
CONFIG_NET_SCH_FIFO=y
# CONFIG_PARPORT_PC_FIFO is not set
Thanks Alfred!
s:schedutil:cpufreq: stuff...
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete@jwh7
DeleteIn my previous test, I haven't noticed fast_switch enabled and thread is not created in my machine.
Pls try fix commit at https://gitlab.com/alfredchen/linux-pds/commit/4f431cdc66a8700629b607d1eec381e85130b2e1
This should fix your issue.
Right on man; working now;
Delete===
$ echo "---";ls -A /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq/policy0/|grep scaling_[cdgm]|sed s:^.*\ ::;echo "---";sudo cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq/policy0/scaling_[cdgm]*
---
scaling_cur_freq
scaling_driver
scaling_governor
scaling_max_freq
scaling_min_freq
---
2500000
powernow-k8
schedutil
2500000
1000000
@jwh7
Deletewhy so complicated, if a simple grep does the job better?
root# grep . /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq/policy0/scaling_[cdgm]*
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq/policy0/scaling_cur_freq:1345852
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq/policy0/scaling_driver:intel_pstate
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq/policy0/scaling_governor:powersave
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq/policy0/scaling_max_freq:3500000
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq/policy0/scaling_min_freq:800000
Regards sysitos
Its (the expansion of...) an alias I use to output in a format used for spreadsheet data. :-)
DeleteI now have .99z running 4.18.9 on my old Eee701 netbook; x86 UP, overclocked to 990 Mhz :-| Thanks again Alfred!
Thanks. Runs good but I think y patch is more responsive/faster.
ReplyDeleteTested again, y is much faster.
ReplyDeleteIs "faster" quantifiable number or faster is the "feeling" about system response?
DeleteBoth of them are ok, but still, it will be good to know...
BR,
Eduardo
From my sanity tests, not much difference between y and z. :)
DeleteSystem responsivity on my latency tuned system is much faster on the y one.
DeleteUnless real measurements are provided, this is a cheap talk.
Delete