Re: [PATCH V6 0/2] tracing, perf: cpu hotplug trace events

Re: [PATCH V6 0/2] tracing, perf: cpu hotplug trace events

[Thomas Renninger]

On Wednesday, March 02, 2011 08:56:25 AM Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org> wrote:
> 
> > This patchset adds some tracepoints for tracing cpu state and for
> > profiling the plug and unplug sequence.
> > 
> > Some SMP arm platform uses cpu hotplug feature for improving their
> > power saving because they can go into their deepest idle state only in
> > mono core mode. In addition, running into mono core mode makes the
> > cpuidle job easier and more efficient which also results in the
> > improvement of power saving of some use cases. As the plug state of a
> > cpu can impact the cpuidle behavior, it's interesting to trace this
> > state and to correlate it with cpuidle traces.
> > Then, cpu hotplug is known to be an expensive operation which also
> > takes a variable time depending of other processes' activity (from
> > hundreds ms up to few seconds). These traces have shown that the arch
> > part stays almost constant on arm platform whatever the cpu load is,
> > whereas the plug duration increases.
> > 
> > ---
> >  include/trace/events/cpu_hotplug.h |  103
> >  ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  kernel/cpu.c                       |   18 ++++++
> >  2 files changed, 121 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >  create mode 100644 include/trace/events/cpu_hotplug.h
> 
> Why not do something much simpler and fit these into the existing
> power:* events:
> 
>      power:cpu_idle
>      power:cpu_frequency
>      power:machine_suspend
>      power:cpu_idle
>      power:cpu_frequency
>      power:machine_suspend
> 
> in an intelligent way?
> 
> CPU hotplug is really a 'soft' form of suspend and tools using power
> events could 
> thus immediately use CPU hotplug events as well.
> 
> A suitable new 'state' value could be used to signal CPU hotplug events:
> 
>  enum {
>         POWER_NONE = 0,
>         POWER_CSTATE = 1,
>         POWER_PSTATE = 2,
>  };
> 
> POWER_HSTATE for hotplug-state, or so.
Be careful, these are obsolete!
This information is in the name of the event itself:
PSTATE -> CPU frequency     -> power:cpu_frequency
CSTATE -> sleep/idle states -> power:cpu_idle

> This would also express the design arguments that others have pointed
> out in the prior discussion: that CPU hotplug is really a power
> management variant, and that in the long run it could be done via
> regular idle as well. When that happens, the above unified event
> structure makes it all even simpler - analysis tools will just 
> continue to work fine.

About the patch:
You create:
cpu_hotplug:cpu_hotplug_down_start
cpu_hotplug:cpu_hotplug_down_end
cpu_hotplug:cpu_hotplug_up_start
cpu_hotplug:cpu_hotplug_up_end
cpu_hotplug:cpu_hotplug_disable_start
cpu_hotplug:cpu_hotplug_disable_end
cpu_hotplug:cpu_hotplug_die_start
cpu_hotplug:cpu_hotplug_die_end
cpu_hotplug:cpu_hotplug_arch_up_start
cpu_hotplug:cpu_hotplug_arch_up_end

quite some events for cpu hotplugging...
You mix up two things you want to trace:
  1) The cpu hotplugging itself which you might want to compare
     with system activity, other idle states, etc. and check whether
     removing/adding CPUs works in respect of your power saving
     algorithms
  2) You want to trace the time __cpu_down and friends take to
     optimize them

For 1. I agree that it would be worth (mostly for arm now as long as
it's the only arch using this as a power saving feature, but it may show
up on other archs as well) to create an event which looks like:

power:cpu_hotplug(unsigned int state, unsigned int cpu_id)

Define a state:
CPU_HOT_PLUG 1
CPU_HOT_UNPLUG 2
This would be consistent with other power:* events. One idea of having
one event passing the state is, that it does not make sense to track an:
power:cpu_hotunplug or power:cpu_hotplug
standalone.

Theoretically this could get enhanced with further states:
CPU_HOT_PLUG_DISABLE_IRQS 3
CPU_HOT_PLUG_ENABLE_IRQS  4
CPU_HOT_PLUG_ACTIVATE     5
CPU_HOT_PLUG_DISABLE      6
...
if it should be possible at some point to only disable IRQs or to
only disable code processing or to only disable whatever to achieve
better power savings.
But as long as there only is the general cpu_hotplug interface
bringing the cpu totally up or down, above should be enough in
respect of power saving tracings.


For 2. you should use more appropriate tools to optimize the code
processed in __cpu_{,up,down,enable,disable,die} functions and friends.
If you simply need the time, system tab or kprobes might work out for you.
There is preloadtrace.ko based on a system tab script which instruments
functions called at boot up and measures their time.

Or probably better are perf profiling facilities. It should be possible
to profile __cpu_down and subsequent calls in detail. Like that you
should get a good picture which functions you have to look at and 
optimize. People in CC should better be able to tell you the exact perf 
commands and parameters you are looking for.


Hm, have you tried/thought about registering an extra cpuidle state with 
long latency doing the cpu_down? For CPU 0 it could call the deepest 
"normal" sleep state, but could decide to shut other cpus down. Like that 
you might be able to get rid of some extra code (interfering with cpuidle 
driver?) and you get all the statistics, etc. for free.


   Thomas

Re: [PATCH V6 0/2] tracing, perf: cpu hotplug trace events

[Vincent Guittot]

On 2 March 2011 11:57, Thomas Renninger <trenn@suse.de> wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 02, 2011 08:56:25 AM Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>
>> * Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org> wrote:
>>
>> > This patchset adds some tracepoints for tracing cpu state and for
>> > profiling the plug and unplug sequence.
>> >
>> > Some SMP arm platform uses cpu hotplug feature for improving their
>> > power saving because they can go into their deepest idle state only in
>> > mono core mode. In addition, running into mono core mode makes the
>> > cpuidle job easier and more efficient which also results in the
>> > improvement of power saving of some use cases. As the plug state of a
>> > cpu can impact the cpuidle behavior, it's interesting to trace this
>> > state and to correlate it with cpuidle traces.
>> > Then, cpu hotplug is known to be an expensive operation which also
>> > takes a variable time depending of other processes' activity (from
>> > hundreds ms up to few seconds). These traces have shown that the arch
>> > part stays almost constant on arm platform whatever the cpu load is,
>> > whereas the plug duration increases.
>> >
>> > ---
>> >  include/trace/events/cpu_hotplug.h |  103
>> >  ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> >  kernel/cpu.c                       |   18 ++++++
>> >  2 files changed, 121 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>> >  create mode 100644 include/trace/events/cpu_hotplug.h
>>
>> Why not do something much simpler and fit these into the existing
>> power:* events:
>>
>>      power:cpu_idle
>>      power:cpu_frequency
>>      power:machine_suspend
>>      power:cpu_idle
>>      power:cpu_frequency
>>      power:machine_suspend
>>
>> in an intelligent way?
>>
>> CPU hotplug is really a 'soft' form of suspend and tools using power
>> events could
>> thus immediately use CPU hotplug events as well.
>>
>> A suitable new 'state' value could be used to signal CPU hotplug events:
>>
>>  enum {
>>         POWER_NONE = 0,
>>         POWER_CSTATE = 1,
>>         POWER_PSTATE = 2,
>>  };
>>
>> POWER_HSTATE for hotplug-state, or so.
> Be careful, these are obsolete!
> This information is in the name of the event itself:
> PSTATE -> CPU frequency     -> power:cpu_frequency
> CSTATE -> sleep/idle states -> power:cpu_idle
>
>> This would also express the design arguments that others have pointed
>> out in the prior discussion: that CPU hotplug is really a power
>> management variant, and that in the long run it could be done via
>> regular idle as well. When that happens, the above unified event
>> structure makes it all even simpler - analysis tools will just
>> continue to work fine.
>
> About the patch:
> You create:
> cpu_hotplug:cpu_hotplug_down_start
> cpu_hotplug:cpu_hotplug_down_end
> cpu_hotplug:cpu_hotplug_up_start
> cpu_hotplug:cpu_hotplug_up_end
> cpu_hotplug:cpu_hotplug_disable_start
> cpu_hotplug:cpu_hotplug_disable_end
> cpu_hotplug:cpu_hotplug_die_start
> cpu_hotplug:cpu_hotplug_die_end
> cpu_hotplug:cpu_hotplug_arch_up_start
> cpu_hotplug:cpu_hotplug_arch_up_end
>
> quite some events for cpu hotplugging...
> You mix up two things you want to trace:
>  1) The cpu hotplugging itself which you might want to compare
>     with system activity, other idle states, etc. and check whether
>     removing/adding CPUs works in respect of your power saving
>     algorithms
>  2) You want to trace the time __cpu_down and friends take to
>     optimize them
>
> For 1. I agree that it would be worth (mostly for arm now as long as
> it's the only arch using this as a power saving feature, but it may show
> up on other archs as well) to create an event which looks like:
>
> power:cpu_hotplug(unsigned int state, unsigned int cpu_id)
>

If it's possible to add such cpu_hotplug event in the power event
class, that's should be fine for me.

> Define a state:
> CPU_HOT_PLUG 1
> CPU_HOT_UNPLUG 2
> This would be consistent with other power:* events. One idea of having
> one event passing the state is, that it does not make sense to track an:
> power:cpu_hotunplug or power:cpu_hotplug
> standalone.
>
> Theoretically this could get enhanced with further states:
> CPU_HOT_PLUG_DISABLE_IRQS 3
> CPU_HOT_PLUG_ENABLE_IRQS  4
> CPU_HOT_PLUG_ACTIVATE     5
> CPU_HOT_PLUG_DISABLE      6
> ...
> if it should be possible at some point to only disable IRQs or to
> only disable code processing or to only disable whatever to achieve
> better power savings.
> But as long as there only is the general cpu_hotplug interface
> bringing the cpu totally up or down, above should be enough in
> respect of power saving tracings.
>
>
> For 2. you should use more appropriate tools to optimize the code
> processed in __cpu_{,up,down,enable,disable,die} functions and friends.
> If you simply need the time, system tab or kprobes might work out for you.
> There is preloadtrace.ko based on a system tab script which instruments
> functions called at boot up and measures their time.
>
> Or probably better are perf profiling facilities. It should be possible
> to profile __cpu_down and subsequent calls in detail. Like that you
> should get a good picture which functions you have to look at and
> optimize. People in CC should better be able to tell you the exact perf
> commands and parameters you are looking for.
>

I had tried to get such kind of information with function or
function_graph tracer but some functions like _cpu_down, are not
available in "available_filter_functions". Then, we don't have the
cpuid information with function trace what is not so bad on a dual
core but becomes more important on a quad cores. That's why I have
added some cpu_hotplug traces but I'm not a trace expert and I could
have missed the solution.

>
> Hm, have you tried/thought about registering an extra cpuidle state with
> long latency doing the cpu_down? For CPU 0 it could call the deepest
> "normal" sleep state, but could decide to shut other cpus down. Like that
> you might be able to get rid of some extra code (interfering with cpuidle
> driver?) and you get all the statistics, etc. for free.
>

No I haven't  tried such mechanism but are you sure that we could call
cpu_down in cpuidle function ?
I'm still looking for relevant triggers for pluging/unpluging the cpu
: current cpu load and loadavg are some interesting ones.

Thanks

Vincent
>
>   Thomas
>

Re: [PATCH V6 0/2] tracing, perf: cpu hotplug trace events

[Thomas Renninger]

On Wednesday 02 March 2011 20:02:00 Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On 2 March 2011 11:57, Thomas Renninger <trenn@suse.de> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 02, 2011 08:56:25 AM Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >>
> >> * Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> > This patchset adds some tracepoints for tracing cpu state and for
> >> > profiling the plug and unplug sequence.
> >> >
> >> > Some SMP arm platform uses cpu hotplug feature for improving their
> >> > power saving because they can go into their deepest idle state only in
> >> > mono core mode. In addition, running into mono core mode makes the
> >> > cpuidle job easier and more efficient which also results in the
> >> > improvement of power saving of some use cases. As the plug state of a
> >> > cpu can impact the cpuidle behavior, it's interesting to trace this
> >> > state and to correlate it with cpuidle traces.
> >> > Then, cpu hotplug is known to be an expensive operation which also
> >> > takes a variable time depending of other processes' activity (from
> >> > hundreds ms up to few seconds). These traces have shown that the arch
> >> > part stays almost constant on arm platform whatever the cpu load is,
> >> > whereas the plug duration increases.
> >> >
> >> > ---
> >> >  include/trace/events/cpu_hotplug.h |  103
> >> >  ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> >  kernel/cpu.c                       |   18 ++++++
> >> >  2 files changed, 121 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >> >  create mode 100644 include/trace/events/cpu_hotplug.h
> >>
> >> Why not do something much simpler and fit these into the existing
> >> power:* events:
> >>
> >>      power:cpu_idle
> >>      power:cpu_frequency
> >>      power:machine_suspend
> >>      power:cpu_idle
> >>      power:cpu_frequency
> >>      power:machine_suspend
> >>
> >> in an intelligent way?
> >>
> >> CPU hotplug is really a 'soft' form of suspend and tools using power
> >> events could
> >> thus immediately use CPU hotplug events as well.
> >>
> >> A suitable new 'state' value could be used to signal CPU hotplug events:
> >>
> >>  enum {
> >>         POWER_NONE = 0,
> >>         POWER_CSTATE = 1,
> >>         POWER_PSTATE = 2,
> >>  };
> >>
> >> POWER_HSTATE for hotplug-state, or so.
> > Be careful, these are obsolete!
> > This information is in the name of the event itself:
> > PSTATE -> CPU frequency     -> power:cpu_frequency
> > CSTATE -> sleep/idle states -> power:cpu_idle
> >
> >> This would also express the design arguments that others have pointed
> >> out in the prior discussion: that CPU hotplug is really a power
> >> management variant, and that in the long run it could be done via
> >> regular idle as well. When that happens, the above unified event
> >> structure makes it all even simpler - analysis tools will just
> >> continue to work fine.
> >
> > About the patch:
> > You create:
> > cpu_hotplug:cpu_hotplug_down_start
> > cpu_hotplug:cpu_hotplug_down_end
> > cpu_hotplug:cpu_hotplug_up_start
> > cpu_hotplug:cpu_hotplug_up_end
> > cpu_hotplug:cpu_hotplug_disable_start
> > cpu_hotplug:cpu_hotplug_disable_end
> > cpu_hotplug:cpu_hotplug_die_start
> > cpu_hotplug:cpu_hotplug_die_end
> > cpu_hotplug:cpu_hotplug_arch_up_start
> > cpu_hotplug:cpu_hotplug_arch_up_end
> >
> > quite some events for cpu hotplugging...
> > You mix up two things you want to trace:
> >  1) The cpu hotplugging itself which you might want to compare
> >     with system activity, other idle states, etc. and check whether
> >     removing/adding CPUs works in respect of your power saving
> >     algorithms
> >  2) You want to trace the time __cpu_down and friends take to
> >     optimize them
> >
> > For 1. I agree that it would be worth (mostly for arm now as long as
> > it's the only arch using this as a power saving feature, but it may show
> > up on other archs as well) to create an event which looks like:
> >
> > power:cpu_hotplug(unsigned int state, unsigned int cpu_id)
> >
> 
> If it's possible to add such cpu_hotplug event in the power event
> class, that's should be fine for me.
> 
> > Define a state:
> > CPU_HOT_PLUG 1
> > CPU_HOT_UNPLUG 2
> > This would be consistent with other power:* events. One idea of having
> > one event passing the state is, that it does not make sense to track an:
> > power:cpu_hotunplug or power:cpu_hotplug
> > standalone.
> >
> > Theoretically this could get enhanced with further states:
> > CPU_HOT_PLUG_DISABLE_IRQS 3
> > CPU_HOT_PLUG_ENABLE_IRQS  4
> > CPU_HOT_PLUG_ACTIVATE     5
> > CPU_HOT_PLUG_DISABLE      6
> > ...
> > if it should be possible at some point to only disable IRQs or to
> > only disable code processing or to only disable whatever to achieve
> > better power savings.
> > But as long as there only is the general cpu_hotplug interface
> > bringing the cpu totally up or down, above should be enough in
> > respect of power saving tracings.
> >
> >
> > For 2. you should use more appropriate tools to optimize the code
> > processed in __cpu_{,up,down,enable,disable,die} functions and friends.
> > If you simply need the time, system tab or kprobes might work out for you.
> > There is preloadtrace.ko based on a system tab script which instruments
> > functions called at boot up and measures their time.
> >
> > Or probably better are perf profiling facilities. It should be possible
> > to profile __cpu_down and subsequent calls in detail. Like that you
> > should get a good picture which functions you have to look at and
> > optimize. People in CC should better be able to tell you the exact perf
> > commands and parameters you are looking for.
> >
> 
> I had tried to get such kind of information with function or
> function_graph tracer but some functions like _cpu_down, are not
> available in "available_filter_functions". Then, we don't have the
> cpuid information with function trace what is not so bad on a dual
> core but becomes more important on a quad cores. That's why I have
> added some cpu_hotplug traces but I'm not a trace expert and I could
> have missed the solution.
Best you ask here:
linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org
Make sure CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO is set.
We (suse) do strip debuginfo from our kernels and provide them via a kernel-xy-debuginfo.rpm

> > Hm, have you tried/thought about registering an extra cpuidle state with
> > long latency doing the cpu_down? For CPU 0 it could call the deepest
> > "normal" sleep state, but could decide to shut other cpus down. Like that
> > you might be able to get rid of some extra code (interfering with cpuidle
> > driver?) and you get all the statistics, etc. for free.
> >
> 
> No I haven't  tried such mechanism but are you sure that we could call
> cpu_down in cpuidle function ?
> I'm still looking for relevant triggers for pluging/unpluging the cpu
> : current cpu load and loadavg are some interesting ones.
Entering shouldn't be a problem, but waking them up again...

I doubt cpu offlining is the proper instrument to save power.
You want to prevent the CPU of being used by ripping it out from scheduler decisions and
make sure it doesn't get interrupts by offlining. But the (latency) price is high.

On the one hand there may be quite some unnecessary hardware accesses to re-set it up again.

On the other hand drivers are notified to not use CPUx anymore, e.g. cpufreq will unload
for this cpu, this might need locks and waiting for sysfs access to finish, etc.
-> also not necessary overhead.

Maybe what you search for is something like sched_mc (kernel/sched.c) for single socket systems.
Something like:
Tell the scheduler to first utilize core0 and/or only use other cores for high prio tasks, or ...

On x86 irqs can be bound to CPUs from userspace via /proc/irq/*/smp_affinity
No idea how this looks like on arm, but this is another knob you could play with to achieve longer
residencies in deepest sleep states.

    Thomas

Re: [PATCH V6 0/2] tracing, perf: cpu hotplug trace events

[Steven Rostedt]

On Wed, 2011-03-02 at 23:07 +0100, Thomas Renninger wrote:

> I doubt cpu offlining is the proper instrument to save power.
> You want to prevent the CPU of being used by ripping it out from scheduler decisions and
> make sure it doesn't get interrupts by offlining. But the (latency) price is high.

I could imagine that a server could use this for power savings to take
down all but 1 CPU on off hours. When it knows its not going to get much
action but still needs to remain online. Then just before peak times
begin, online the other CPUs.

But anything more dynamic than that, I can't see it really worth it. As
the latency to bring the other CPU online, may miss a peak when it was
needed.

-- Steve

Re: [PATCH V6 0/2] tracing, perf: cpu hotplug trace events

[Amit Kucheria]

On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 12:42 AM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-03-02 at 23:07 +0100, Thomas Renninger wrote:
>
>> I doubt cpu offlining is the proper instrument to save power.
>> You want to prevent the CPU of being used by ripping it out from scheduler decisions and
>> make sure it doesn't get interrupts by offlining. But the (latency) price is high.
>
> I could imagine that a server could use this for power savings to take
> down all but 1 CPU on off hours. When it knows its not going to get much
> action but still needs to remain online. Then just before peak times
> begin, online the other CPUs.
>
> But anything more dynamic than that, I can't see it really worth it. As
> the latency to bring the other CPU online, may miss a peak when it was
> needed.
>

ARM SoCs require both cores to be idle to hit the really low power
retention/off states. Hoping for both cores to go idle at the same
instant causes several low power opportunities to be lost. Hence the
experiments with hotplug to improve the idle characteristics of the
system. On our wiki page[1], you can see some results under "Idle
improvement" section.

But sched_mc does seem like a more appropriate way to help nudge all
the workload onto a single core.

Regards,
Amit


[1] https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/PowerManagement/Doc/Hotplug