From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Quentin Perret Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 03/14] PM: Introduce an Energy Model management framework Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2018 14:28:13 +0100 Message-ID: <20180829132811.iacfltcos6kfgp7e@queper01-lin> References: <20180820094420.26590-1-quentin.perret@arm.com> <20180820094420.26590-4-quentin.perret@arm.com> <20180829100435.GP2960@e110439-lin> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180829100435.GP2960@e110439-lin> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Patrick Bellasi Cc: peterz@infradead.org, rjw@rjwysocki.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, mingo@redhat.com, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, morten.rasmussen@arm.com, chris.redpath@arm.com, valentin.schneider@arm.com, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, thara.gopinath@linaro.org, viresh.kumar@linaro.org, tkjos@google.com, joel@joelfernandes.org, smuckle@google.com, adharmap@codeaurora.org, skannan@codeaurora.org, pkondeti@codeaurora.org, juri.lelli@redhat.com, edubezval@gmail.com, srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com, currojerez@riseup.net, javi.merino@kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org Hi Patrick, On Wednesday 29 Aug 2018 at 11:04:35 (+0100), Patrick Bellasi wrote: > In the loop above we use smp_store_release() to propagate the pointer > setting in a PER_CPU(em_data), which ultimate goal is to protect > em_register_perf_domain() from multiple clients registering the same > power domain. > > I think there are two possible optimizations there: > > 1. use of a single memory barrier > > Since we are already em_pd_mutex protected, i.e. there cannot be a > concurrent writers, we can use one single memory barrier after the > loop, i.e. > > for_each_cpu(cpu, span) > WRITE_ONCE() > smp_wmb() > > which should be just enough to ensure that all other CPUs will see > the pointer set once we release the mutex Right, I'm actually wondering if the memory barrier is needed at all ... The mutex lock()/unlock() should already ensure the ordering I want no ? WRITE_ONCE() should prevent load/store tearing with concurrent em_cpu_get(), and the release/acquire semantics of mutex lock/unlock should be enough to serialize the memory accesses of concurrent em_register_perf_domain() calls properly ... Hmm, let me read memory-barriers.txt again. > 2. avoid using PER_CPU variables > > Apart from the initialization code, i.e. boot time, the em_data is > expected to be read only, isn't it? That's right. It's not only read only, it's also not read very often (in the use-cases I have in mind at least). The scheduler for example will call em_cpu_get() once when sched domains are built, and keep the reference instead of calling it again. > If that's the case, I think that using PER_CPU variables is not > strictly required while it unnecessarily increases the cache pressure. > > In the worst case we can end up with one cache line for each CPU to > host just an 8B pointer, instead of using that single cache line to host > up to 8 pointers if we use just an array, i.e. > > struct em_perf_domain *em_data[NR_CPUS] > ____cacheline_aligned_in_smp __read_mostly; > > Consider also that: up to 8 pointers in a single cache line means > also that single cache line can be enough to access the EM from all > the CPUs of almost every modern mobile phone SoC. > > Note entirely sure if PER_CPU uses less overall memory in case you > have much less CPUs then the compile time defined NR_CPUS. > But still, if the above makes sense, you still have a 8x gain > factor between number Write allocated .data..percp sections and > the value of NR_CPUS. Meaning that in the worst case we allocate > the same amount of memory using NR_CPUS=64 (the default on arm64) > while running on an 8 CPUs system... but still we should get less > cluster caches pressure at run-time with the array approach, 1 > cache line vs 4. Right, using per_cpu() might cause to bring in cache things you don't really care about (other non-related per_cpu stuff), but that shouldn't waste memory I think. I mean, if my em_data var is the first in a cache line, the rest of the cache line will most likely be used by other per_cpu variables anyways ... As you suggested, the alternative would be to have a simple array. I'm fine with this TBH. But I would probably allocate it dynamically using nr_cpu_ids instead of using a static NR_CPUS-wide thing though -- the registration of perf domains usually happens late enough in the boot process. What do you think ? Thanks Quentin