From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-13.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_MED, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C438DC43460 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 15:15:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3E8F61131 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 15:15:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S233949AbhDOPPg (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Apr 2021 11:15:36 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:45988 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S235443AbhDOPFI (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Apr 2021 11:05:08 -0400 Received: from mail-wr1-x434.google.com (mail-wr1-x434.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::434]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 26AF2C06138D for ; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 08:04:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wr1-x434.google.com with SMTP id r7so11636114wrm.1 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 08:04:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=DZX4sYgXxdpSbOuCJhVuGZb+k3GPukvecVA74S1iE6s=; b=aAhEncwIF7d0dA91BzoO7BbFVR7LjQSgzLEeNecJFaQoNGu5hvAnx6gjfwRgnliLMg D3iM0MPKWB6Qa58oWJU/+YtCGh2e2hAWsxcCUsg/3j+AF946AIeQiUNF1dXmM9JIEd0j x7OJORbgBzjj5I6N6mOeb1iuCuPzP8vD8jSlB2TD97mDz+7DcuMyCaFcnn0TNRvm5y9D d5ICY7gE2IfP0foAzxB5rf3DXgiD5tkCAI5UmphNL2DwkayFc/CIF5fxLwFvP7fS7Ese B8rdO7yLJ9gxWZ0Qzno6+sq1oS+ZYph2uPSydRW5nyWkY+JGNxV8SDBlJTjaFsTaT8jy fo/w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=DZX4sYgXxdpSbOuCJhVuGZb+k3GPukvecVA74S1iE6s=; b=WdK196ojPynIplvKzH5cSIgnVZsLW6s3AaI+lgSOZdlJ6dSOcZsZw6zDZWBjmwC0pD kgUYsugVnGoJDeMKCG3iNCsCL51E4ByCcmsdHdZUnQ0OETFLiC8ptkOkev1XG7+X2m/x TL3vgm/B4StRvjW9o9wFxS+m3eF/XiuC2rYr9WKRjYSY51QEJ+8rPTIuxiy7OyxY5HEv ec1K5+Btw1yiQzAwjtsU/I/jsJxr87AU2OdHvHMN9DZg9BI+foK91QhNVobEnua4OGIP gd2a4WGe+11T/j8vAdUuwlR9VdJIJ0dEn27CjecjIQMKNOZpTeBAtP597LLPp+14QaUY XboA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531SZJ4vccyS3qgmw5tLDB9CJZEgosR/N13JWUszwNAhtjB0IjlL qDOInJyhlbOXezURutx0UubBhg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwz2c4bbyUfYDdljuXh0JGRMa40XpTlCfr5FYSXBBBiGXtCO0qRQQChDuAKOh+mInn49ucxvg== X-Received: by 2002:adf:a40c:: with SMTP id d12mr3972733wra.91.1618499077694; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 08:04:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from google.com (105.168.195.35.bc.googleusercontent.com. [35.195.168.105]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id o62sm9377757wmo.3.2021.04.15.08.04.37 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 15 Apr 2021 08:04:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2021 15:04:34 +0000 From: Quentin Perret To: Vincent Donnefort Cc: peterz@infradead.org, rjw@rjwysocki.net, viresh.kumar@linaro.org, vincent.guittot@linaro.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ionela.voinescu@arm.com, lukasz.luba@arm.com, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] PM / EM: Inefficient OPPs detection Message-ID: References: <1617901829-381963-1-git-send-email-vincent.donnefort@arm.com> <1617901829-381963-2-git-send-email-vincent.donnefort@arm.com> <20210415141207.GA391924@e120877-lin.cambridge.arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210415141207.GA391924@e120877-lin.cambridge.arm.com> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thursday 15 Apr 2021 at 15:12:08 (+0100), Vincent Donnefort wrote: > On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 01:12:05PM +0000, Quentin Perret wrote: > > Hi Vincent, > > > > On Thursday 08 Apr 2021 at 18:10:29 (+0100), Vincent Donnefort wrote: > > > Some SoCs, such as the sd855 have OPPs within the same performance domain, > > > whose cost is higher than others with a higher frequency. Even though > > > those OPPs are interesting from a cooling perspective, it makes no sense > > > to use them when the device can run at full capacity. Those OPPs handicap > > > the performance domain, when choosing the most energy-efficient CPU and > > > are wasting energy. They are inefficient. > > > > > > Hence, add support for such OPPs to the Energy Model, which creates for > > > each OPP a performance state. The Energy Model can now be read using the > > > regular table, which contains all performance states available, or using > > > an efficient table, where inefficient performance states (and by > > > extension, inefficient OPPs) have been removed. > > > > > > Currently, the efficient table is used in two paths. Schedutil, and > > > find_energy_efficient_cpu(). We have to modify both paths in the same > > > patch so they stay synchronized. The thermal framework still relies on > > > the original table and hence, DevFreq devices won't create the efficient > > > table. > > > > > > As used in the hot-path, the efficient table is a lookup table, generated > > > dynamically when the perf domain is created. The complexity of searching > > > a performance state is hence changed from O(n) to O(1). This also > > > speeds-up em_cpu_energy() even if no inefficient OPPs have been found. > > > > Interesting. Do you have measurements showing the benefits on wake-up > > duration? I remember doing so by hacking the wake-up path to force tasks > > into feec()/compute_energy() even when overutilized, and then running > > hackbench. Maybe something like that would work for you? > > I'll give a try and see if I get improved numbers. > > > > > Just want to make sure we actually need all that complexity -- while > > it's good to reduce the asymptotic complexity, we're looking at a rather > > small problem (max 30 OPPs or so I expect?), so other effects may be > > dominating. Simply skipping inefficient OPPs could be implemented in a > > much simpler way I think. > > I could indeed just skip the perf state if marked as ineffective. But the idea > was to avoid bringing another for loop in this hot-path. Right, though it would just extend a little bit the existing loop, so the overhead is unlikely to be noticeable. > Also, not covered by this patch but probably we could get rid of the EM > complexity limit as the table resolution is way faster with this change. Probably yeah. I was considering removing it since eb92692b2544 ("sched/fair: Speed-up energy-aware wake-ups") but ended up keeping it as it's entirely untested on large systems. But maybe we can reconsider. Thanks, Quentin