[PATCH v5 15/23] PM: EM: Optimize em_cpu_energy() and remove division

Lukasz Luba
2023-11-29T11:10:03Z

The Energy Model (EM) can be modified at runtime which brings new
possibilities. The em_cpu_energy() is called by the Energy Aware Scheduler
(EAS) in it's hot path. The energy calculation uses power value for
a given performance state (ps) and the CPU busy time as percentage for that
given frequency, which effectively is:

pd_nrg = ps->power * busy_time_pct (1)

cpu_util
busy_time_pct = ----------------- (2)
ps->performance

The 'ps->performance' is the CPU capacity (performance) at that given ps.
Thus, in a situation when the OS is not overloaded and we have EAS
working, the busy time is lower than 'ps->performance' that the CPU is
running at. Therefore, in longer scheduling period we can treat the power
value calculated above as the energy.

We can optimize the last arithmetic operation in em_cpu_energy() and
remove the division. This can be done because em_perf_state::cost, which
is a special coefficient, can now hold the pre-calculated value including
the 'ps->performance' information for a performance state (ps):

ps->power
ps->cost = --------------- (3)
ps->performance

In the past the 'ps->performance' had to be calculated at runtime every
time the em_cpu_energy() was called. Thus there was this formula involved:

ps->freq
ps->performance = ------------- * scale_cpu (4)
cpu_max_freq

When we inject (4) into (2) than we can have this equation:

cpu_util * cpu_max_freq
busy_time_pct = ------------------------ (5)
ps->freq * scale_cpu

Because the right 'scale_cpu' value wasn't ready during the boot time
and EM initialization, we had to perform the division by 'scale_cpu'
at runtime. There was not safe mechanism to update EM at runtime.
It has changed thanks to EM runtime modification feature.

It is possible to avoid the division by 'scale_cpu' at runtime, because
EM is updated whenever new max capacity CPU is set in the system or after
the boot has finished and proper CPU capacity is ready.

Use that feature and do the needed division during the calculation of the
coefficient 'ps->cost'. That enhanced 'ps->cost' value can be then just
multiplied simply by utilization:

pd_nrg = ps->cost * \Sum cpu_util (6)

to get the needed energy for whole Performance Domain (PD).

With this optimization, the em_cpu_energy() should run faster on the Big
CPU by 1.43x and on the Little CPU by 1.69x.

Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>
---
include/linux/energy_model.h | 68 +++++-------------------------------
kernel/power/energy_model.c | 7 ++--
2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 63 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/energy_model.h b/include/linux/energy_model.h
index e30750500b10..0f5621898a81 100644
--- a/include/linux/energy_model.h
+++ b/include/linux/energy_model.h
@@ -115,27 +115,6 @@ struct em_perf_domain {
#define EM_MAX_NUM_CPUS 16
#endif

-/*
- * To avoid an overflow on 32bit machines while calculating the energy
- * use a different order in the operation. First divide by the 'cpu_scale'
- * which would reduce big value stored in the 'cost' field, then multiply by
- * the 'sum_util'. This would allow to handle existing platforms, which have
- * e.g. power ~1.3 Watt at max freq, so the 'cost' value > 1mln micro-Watts.
- * In such scenario, where there are 4 CPUs in the Perf. Domain the 'sum_util'
- * could be 4096, then multiplication: 'cost' * 'sum_util' would overflow.
- * This reordering of operations has some limitations, we lose small
- * precision in the estimation (comparing to 64bit platform w/o reordering).
- *
- * We are safe on 64bit machine.
- */
-#ifdef CONFIG_64BIT
-#define em_estimate_energy(cost, sum_util, scale_cpu) \
- (((cost) * (sum_util)) / (scale_cpu))
-#else
-#define em_estimate_energy(cost, sum_util, scale_cpu) \
- (((cost) / (scale_cpu)) * (sum_util))
-#endif
-
struct em_data_callback {
/**
* active_power() - Provide power at the next performance state of
@@ -249,29 +228,16 @@ static inline unsigned long em_cpu_energy(struct em_perf_domain *pd,
{
struct em_perf_table *runtime_table;
struct em_perf_state *ps;
- unsigned long scale_cpu;
- int cpu, i;
+ int i;

if (!sum_util)
return 0;

- /*
- * In order to predict the performance state, map the utilization of
- * the most utilized CPU of the performance domain to a requested
- * frequency, like schedutil. Take also into account that the real
- * frequency might be set lower (due to thermal capping). Thus, clamp
- * max utilization to the allowed CPU capacity before calculating
- * effective frequency.
- */
- cpu = cpumask_first(to_cpumask(pd->cpus));
- scale_cpu = arch_scale_cpu_capacity(cpu);
-
/*
* No rcu_read_lock() since it's already called by task scheduler.
* The runtime_table is always there for CPUs, so we don't check.
*/
runtime_table = rcu_dereference(pd->runtime_table);
-
ps = &runtime_table->state[pd->nr_perf_states - 1];

max_util = map_util_perf(max_util);
@@ -286,35 +252,21 @@ static inline unsigned long em_cpu_energy(struct em_perf_domain *pd,
ps = &runtime_table->state[i];

/*
- * The capacity of a CPU in the domain at the performance state (ps)
- * can be computed as:
- *
- * ps->freq * scale_cpu
- * ps->cap = -------------------- (1)
- * cpu_max_freq
- *
- * So, ignoring the costs of idle states (which are not available in
- * the EM), the energy consumed by this CPU at that performance state
+ * The energy consumed by the CPU at the given performance state (ps)
* is estimated as:
*
- * ps->power * cpu_util
- * cpu_nrg = -------------------- (2)
- * ps->cap
+ * ps->power
+ * cpu_nrg = --------------- * cpu_util (1)
+ * ps->performance
*
- * since 'cpu_util / ps->cap' represents its percentage of busy time.
+ * The 'cpu_util / ps->performance' represents its percentage of
+ * busy time. The idle cost is ignored (it's not available in the EM).
*
* NOTE: Although the result of this computation actually is in
* units of power, it can be manipulated as an energy value
* over a scheduling period, since it is assumed to be
* constant during that interval.
*
- * By injecting (1) in (2), 'cpu_nrg' can be re-expressed as a product
- * of two terms:
- *
- * ps->power * cpu_max_freq cpu_util
- * cpu_nrg = ------------------------ * --------- (3)
- * ps->freq scale_cpu
- *
* The first term is static, and is stored in the em_perf_state struct
* as 'ps->cost'.
*
@@ -323,11 +275,9 @@ static inline unsigned long em_cpu_energy(struct em_perf_domain *pd,
* total energy of the domain (which is the simple sum of the energy of
* all of its CPUs) can be factorized as:
*
- * ps->cost * \Sum cpu_util
- * pd_nrg = ------------------------ (4)
- * scale_cpu
+ * pd_nrg = ps->cost * \Sum cpu_util (2)
*/
- return em_estimate_energy(ps->cost, sum_util, scale_cpu);
+ return ps->cost * sum_util;
}

/**
diff --git a/kernel/power/energy_model.c b/kernel/power/energy_model.c
index d3fa5a77de80..c6e5f35a5129 100644
--- a/kernel/power/energy_model.c
+++ b/kernel/power/energy_model.c
@@ -204,11 +204,9 @@ static int em_compute_costs(struct device *dev, struct em_perf_state *table,
unsigned long flags)
{
unsigned long prev_cost = ULONG_MAX;
- u64 fmax;
int i, ret;

/* Compute the cost of each performance state. */
- fmax = (u64) table[nr_states - 1].frequency;
for (i = nr_states - 1; i >= 0; i--) {
unsigned long power_res, cost;

@@ -220,8 +218,9 @@ static int em_compute_costs(struct device *dev, struct em_perf_state *table,
return -EINVAL;
}
} else {
- power_res = table[i].power;
- cost = div64_u64(fmax * power_res, table[i].frequency);
+ /* increase resolution of 'cost' precision */
+ power_res = table[i].power * 10;
+ cost = power_res / table[i].performance;
}

table[i].cost = cost;
--
2.25.1