From: Stratos Karafotis <stratosk@semaphore.gr>
To: Dirk Brandewie <dirk.brandewie@gmail.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
Dirk Brandewie <dirk.j.brandewie@intel.com>
Cc: "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Doug Smythies <dsmythies@telus.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Change the calculation of next pstate
Date: Fri, 09 May 2014 17:56:52 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <536CECB4.1090109@semaphore.gr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <536BEE89.3040602@gmail.com>
Hi Dirk,
On 08/05/2014 11:52 μμ, Dirk Brandewie wrote:
> On 05/05/2014 04:57 PM, Stratos Karafotis wrote:
>> Currently the driver calculates the next pstate proportional to
>> core_busy factor, scaled by the ratio max_pstate / current_pstate.
>>
>> Using the scaled load (core_busy) to calculate the next pstate
>> is not always correct, because there are cases that the load is
>> independent from current pstate. For example, a tight 'for' loop
>> through many sampling intervals will cause a load of 100% in
>> every pstate.
>>
>> So, change the above method and calculate the next pstate with
>> the assumption that the next pstate should not depend on the
>> current pstate. The next pstate should only be proportional
>> to measured load. Use the linear function to calculate the load:
>>
>> Next P-state = A + B * load
>>
>> where A = min_state and B = (max_pstate - min_pstate) / 100
>> If turbo is enabled the B = (turbo_pstate - min_pstate) / 100
>> The load is calculated using the kernel time functions.
>>
Thank you very much for your comments and for your time to test my patch!
>
> This will hurt your power numbers under "normal" conditions where you
> are not running a performance workload. Consider the following:
>
> 1. The system is idle, all core at min P state and utilization is low say < 10%
> 2. You run something that drives the load as seen by the kernel to 100%
> which scaled by the current P state.
>
> This would cause the P state to go from min -> max in one step. Which is
> what you want if you are only looking at a single core. But this will also
> drag every core in the package to the max P state as well. This would be fine
I think, this will also happen using the original driver (before your
new patch 4/5), after some sampling intervals.
> if the power vs frequency cure was linear all the cores would finish
> their work faster and go idle sooner (race to halt) and maybe spend
> more time in a deeper C state which dwarfs the amount of power we can
> save by controlling P states. Unfortunately this is *not* the case,
> power vs frequency curve is non-linear and get very steep in the turbo
> range. If it were linear there would be no reason to have P state
> control you could select the highest P state and walk away.
>
> Being conservative on the way up and aggressive on way down give you
> the best power efficiency on non-benchmark loads. Most benchmarks
> are pretty useless for measuring power efficiency (unless they were
> designed for it) since they are measuring how fast something can be
> done which is measuring the efficiency at max performance.
>
> The performance issues you pointed out were caused by commit
> fcb6a15c intel_pstate: Take core C0 time into account for core busy calculation
> and the ensuing problem is caused. These have been fixed in the patch set
>
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/5/8/574
>
> The performance comparison between before/after this patch set, your patch
> and ondemand/acpi_cpufreq is available at:
> http://openbenchmarking.org/result/1405085-PL-C0200965993
> ffmpeg was added to the set of benchmarks because there was a regression
> reported against this benchmark as well.
> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=75121
Of course, I agree generally with your comments above. But I believe that
the we should scale the core as soon as we measure high load.
I tested your new patches and I confirm your benchmarks. But I think
they are against the above theory (at least on low loads).
With the new patches I get increased frequencies even on an idle system.
Please compare the results below.
With your latest patches during a mp3 decoding (a non-benchmark load)
the energy consumption increased to 5187.52 J from 5036.57 J (almost 3%).
Thanks again,
Stratos
With my patch
-------------
[root@albert ~]# /home/stratosk/kernels/linux-pm/tools/power/x86/turbostat/turbostat -i 60
Core CPU Avg_MHz %Busy Bzy_MHz TSC_MHz SMI CPU%c1 CPU%c3 CPU%c6 CPU%c7 CoreTmp PkgTmp Pkg%pc2 Pkg%pc3 Pkg%pc6 Pkg%pc7 PkgWatt CorWatt GFXWatt
- - 1 0.06 1645 3392 0 0.26 0.00 99.67 0.00 32 32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.18 2.00 0.02
0 0 2 0.10 1623 3392 0 0.63 0.01 99.26 0.00 32 32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.18 2.00 0.02
0 4 0 0.01 1618 3392 0 0.72
1 1 1 0.03 1618 3392 0 0.03 0.00 99.94 0.00 27
1 5 0 0.01 1606 3392 0 0.05
2 2 0 0.02 1635 3392 0 0.28 0.00 99.70 0.00 22
2 6 3 0.17 1668 3392 0 0.13
3 3 2 0.12 1647 3392 0 0.08 0.00 99.80 0.00 30
3 7 0 0.02 1623 3392 0 0.18
With your latest patch
----------------------
[root@albert ~]# /home/stratosk/kernels/linux-pm/tools/power/x86/turbostat/turbostat -i 60
Core CPU Avg_MHz %Busy Bzy_MHz TSC_MHz SMI CPU%c1 CPU%c3 CPU%c6 CPU%c7 CoreTmp PkgTmp Pkg%pc2 Pkg%pc3 Pkg%pc6 Pkg%pc7 PkgWatt CorWatt GFXWatt
- - 1 0.05 2035 3392 0 0.28 0.01 99.66 0.00 34 34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.20 2.01 0.02
0 0 1 0.04 1831 3392 0 0.06 0.00 99.90 0.00 34 34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.20 2.01 0.02
0 4 0 0.01 2136 3392 0 0.09
1 1 1 0.06 1931 3392 0 0.70 0.00 99.24 0.00 31
1 5 0 0.01 2024 3392 0 0.75
2 2 1 0.03 2231 3392 0 0.21 0.03 99.73 0.00 26
2 6 2 0.09 1967 3392 0 0.15
3 3 3 0.15 2115 3392 0 0.06 0.00 99.78 0.00 34
3 7 0 0.02 2073 3392 0 0.19
With my patch:
--------------
[root@albert ~]# /home/stratosk/kernels/linux-pm/tools/power/x86/turbostat/turbostat mpg321 /home/stratosk/One\ Direction\ -\ Story\ of\ My\ Life.mp3
[4:05] Decoding of One Direction - Story of My Life.mp3 finished.
Core CPU Avg_MHz %Busy Bzy_MHz TSC_MHz SMI CPU%c1 CPU%c3 CPU%c6 CPU%c7 CoreTmp PkgTmp Pkg%pc2 Pkg%pc3 Pkg%pc6 Pkg%pc7 PkgWatt CorWatt GFXWatt
- - 7 0.45 1613 3392 0 14.55 0.02 84.97 0.00 35 35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.51 2.33 0.01
0 0 16 1.01 1623 3392 0 1.06 0.04 97.89 0.00 35 35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.51 2.33 0.01
0 4 0 0.02 1616 3392 0 2.05
1 1 3 0.16 1609 3392 0 1.61 0.00 98.22 0.00 30
1 5 13 0.80 1606 3392 0 0.97
2 2 8 0.52 1606 3392 0 38.97 0.03 60.48 0.00 26
2 6 10 0.65 1613 3392 0 38.84
3 3 7 0.42 1613 3392 0 16.28 0.01 83.29 0.00 33
3 7 1 0.05 1624 3392 0 16.65
245.566284 sec
With your patch:
----------------
[root@albert ~]# /home/stratosk/kernels/linux-pm/tools/power/x86/turbostat/turbostat mpg321 /home/stratosk/One\ Direction\ -\ Story\ of\ My\ Life.mp3
[4:05] Decoding of One Direction - Story of My Life.mp3 finished.
Core CPU Avg_MHz %Busy Bzy_MHz TSC_MHz SMI CPU%c1 CPU%c3 CPU%c6 CPU%c7 CoreTmp PkgTmp Pkg%pc2 Pkg%pc3 Pkg%pc6 Pkg%pc7 PkgWatt CorWatt GFXWatt
- - 7 0.27 2773 3392 0 40.05 0.01 59.67 0.00 35 35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 21.11 2.93 0.01
0 0 9 0.31 2773 3392 0 82.55 0.01 17.12 0.00 35 35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 21.11 2.93 0.01
0 4 5 0.15 3290 3392 0 82.71
1 1 8 0.31 2541 3392 0 26.87 0.00 72.82 0.00 30
1 5 19 0.79 2400 3392 0 26.38
2 2 8 0.23 3490 3392 0 15.43 0.00 84.34 0.00 27
2 6 1 0.04 2086 3392 0 15.62
3 3 4 0.13 2978 3392 0 35.44 0.00 64.42 0.00 31
3 7 6 0.16 3553 3392 0 35.42
245.642873 sec
With original code
-----------------
[root@albert ~]# /home/stratosk/kernels/linux-pm/tools/power/x86/turbostat/turbostat mpg321 /home/stratosk/One\ Direction\ -\ Story\ of\ My\ Life.mp3
[4:05] Decoding of One Direction - Story of My Life.mp3 finished.
Core CPU Avg_MHz %Busy Bzy_MHz TSC_MHz SMI CPU%c1 CPU%c3 CPU%c6 CPU%c7 CoreTmp PkgTmp Pkg%pc2 Pkg%pc3 Pkg%pc6 Pkg%pc7 PkgWatt CorWatt GFXWatt
- - 5 0.32 1608 3392 0 20.43 0.01 79.24 0.00 35 35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.59 2.41 0.01
0 0 2 0.11 1621 3392 0 20.90 0.01 78.98 0.00 35 35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.59 2.41 0.01
0 4 6 0.38 1600 3392 0 20.63
1 1 8 0.50 1603 3392 0 24.10 0.00 75.40 0.00 29
1 5 0 0.02 1611 3392 0 24.58
2 2 13 0.81 1598 3392 0 0.45 0.02 98.73 0.00 29
2 6 1 0.04 1675 3392 0 1.21
3 3 9 0.59 1603 3392 0 35.54 0.01 63.86 0.00 33
3 7 1 0.08 1749 3392 0 36.05
245.641863 sec
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-05-09 14:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-05-05 23:57 [RFC PATCH] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Change the calculation of next pstate Stratos Karafotis
2014-05-08 20:52 ` Dirk Brandewie
2014-05-09 14:56 ` Stratos Karafotis [this message]
2014-05-12 20:30 ` Stratos Karafotis
2014-05-12 19:34 ` Yuyang Du
2014-05-13 3:59 ` Stratos Karafotis
2014-05-12 20:01 ` Yuyang Du
2014-05-13 4:16 ` Stratos Karafotis
2014-05-12 20:34 ` Yuyang Du
2014-05-17 6:52 ` Stratos Karafotis
[not found] <bf3034d0-5c89-4ddb-921a-a92a4aed39f8@fmsmsx105.amr.corp.intel.com>
2014-05-12 21:59 ` Yuyang Du
2014-05-13 13:39 ` Stratos Karafotis
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=536CECB4.1090109@semaphore.gr \
--to=stratosk@semaphore.gr \
--cc=dirk.brandewie@gmail.com \
--cc=dirk.j.brandewie@intel.com \
--cc=dsmythies@telus.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.