lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Apr]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 1/2] cpuidle : auto-promotion for cpuidle states
From
Date
Hi Daniel,

Thanks for such a descriptive review. I will include all the suggestions
made in my next iteration.

--Abhishek

On 04/08/2019 07:42 PM, Daniel Axtens wrote:
> Hi Abhishek,
>
>> Currently, the cpuidle governors (menu /ladder) determine what idle state
>> an idling CPU should enter into based on heuristics that depend on the
>> idle history on that CPU. Given that no predictive heuristic is perfect,
>> there are cases where the governor predicts a shallow idle state, hoping
>> that the CPU will be busy soon. However, if no new workload is scheduled
>> on that CPU in the near future, the CPU will end up in the shallow state.
>>
>> In case of POWER, this is problematic, when the predicted state in the
>> aforementioned scenario is a lite stop state, as such lite states will
>> inhibit SMT folding, thereby depriving the other threads in the core from
>> using the core resources.
>>
>> To address this, such lite states need to be autopromoted. The cpuidle-
>> core can queue timer to correspond with the residency value of the next
>> available state. Thus leading to auto-promotion to a deeper idle state as
>> soon as possible.
>>
> This sounds sensible to me, although I'm not really qualified to offer a
> full power-management opinion on it. I have some general code questions
> and comments, however, which are below:
>
>> Signed-off-by: Abhishek Goel <huntbag@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> ---
>>
>> v1->v2 : Removed timeout_needed and rebased to current upstream kernel
>>
>> drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c | 68 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>> drivers/cpuidle/governors/ladder.c | 3 +-
>> drivers/cpuidle/governors/menu.c | 22 +++++++++-
>> include/linux/cpuidle.h | 10 ++++-
>> 4 files changed, 99 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c
>> index 7f108309e..11ce43f19 100644
>> --- a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c
>> +++ b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c
>> @@ -36,6 +36,11 @@ static int enabled_devices;
>> static int off __read_mostly;
>> static int initialized __read_mostly;
>>
>> +struct auto_promotion {
>> + struct hrtimer hrtimer;
>> + unsigned long timeout_us;
>> +};
>> +
>> int cpuidle_disabled(void)
>> {
>> return off;
>> @@ -188,6 +193,54 @@ int cpuidle_enter_s2idle(struct cpuidle_driver *drv, struct cpuidle_device *dev)
>> }
>> #endif /* CONFIG_SUSPEND */
>>
>> +enum hrtimer_restart auto_promotion_hrtimer_callback(struct hrtimer *hrtimer)
>> +{
>> + return HRTIMER_NORESTART;
>> +}
>> +
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_CPU_IDLE_AUTO_PROMOTION
> As far as I can tell, this config flag isn't defined until the next
> patch, making this dead code for now. Is this intentional?
>
>> +DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct auto_promotion, ap);
> A quick grep suggests that most per-cpu variable have more descriptive
> names, perhaps this one should too.
>
>> +
>> +static void cpuidle_auto_promotion_start(int cpu, struct cpuidle_state *state)
>> +{
>> + struct auto_promotion *this_ap = &per_cpu(ap, cpu);
>> +
>> + if (state->flags & CPUIDLE_FLAG_AUTO_PROMOTION)
>> + hrtimer_start(&this_ap->hrtimer, ns_to_ktime(this_ap->timeout_us
>> + * 1000), HRTIMER_MODE_REL_PINNED);
> Would it be clearer to have both sides of the multiplication on the same
> line? i.e.
> + hrtimer_start(&this_ap->hrtimer,
> + ns_to_ktime(this_ap->timeout_us * 1000),
> + HRTIMER_MODE_REL_PINNED);
>
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void cpuidle_auto_promotion_cancel(int cpu)
>> +{
>> + struct hrtimer *hrtimer;
>> +
>> + hrtimer = &per_cpu(ap, cpu).hrtimer;
>> + if (hrtimer_is_queued(hrtimer))
>> + hrtimer_cancel(hrtimer);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void cpuidle_auto_promotion_update(int cpu, unsigned long timeout)
>> +{
>> + per_cpu(ap, cpu).timeout_us = timeout;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void cpuidle_auto_promotion_init(int cpu, struct cpuidle_driver *drv)
>> +{
>> + struct auto_promotion *this_ap = &per_cpu(ap, cpu);
>> +
>> + hrtimer_init(&this_ap->hrtimer, CLOCK_MONOTONIC, HRTIMER_MODE_REL);
>> + this_ap->hrtimer.function = auto_promotion_hrtimer_callback;
>> +}
>> +#else
>> +static inline void cpuidle_auto_promotion_start(int cpu, struct cpuidle_state
>> + *state) { }
>> +static inline void cpuidle_auto_promotion_cancel(int cpu) { }
>> +static inline void cpuidle_auto_promotion_update(int cpu, unsigned long
>> + timeout) { }
>> +static inline void cpuidle_auto_promotion_init(int cpu, struct cpuidle_driver
>> + *drv) { }
> Several of these have the type, then a line break, and then the name
> (unsigned long\n timeout). This is a bit harder to read, they should
> probably all be on the same line.
>
>> +#endif
>> +
>> /**
>> * cpuidle_enter_state - enter the state and update stats
>> * @dev: cpuidle device for this cpu
>> @@ -225,12 +278,17 @@ int cpuidle_enter_state(struct cpuidle_device *dev, struct cpuidle_driver *drv,
>> trace_cpu_idle_rcuidle(index, dev->cpu);
>> time_start = ns_to_ktime(local_clock());
>>
>> + cpuidle_auto_promotion_start(dev->cpu, target_state);
>> +
>> stop_critical_timings();
>> entered_state = target_state->enter(dev, drv, index);
>> start_critical_timings();
>>
>> sched_clock_idle_wakeup_event();
>> time_end = ns_to_ktime(local_clock());
>> +
>> + cpuidle_auto_promotion_cancel(dev->cpu);
>> +
>> trace_cpu_idle_rcuidle(PWR_EVENT_EXIT, dev->cpu);
>>
>> /* The cpu is no longer idle or about to enter idle. */
>> @@ -312,7 +370,13 @@ int cpuidle_enter_state(struct cpuidle_device *dev, struct cpuidle_driver *drv,
>> int cpuidle_select(struct cpuidle_driver *drv, struct cpuidle_device *dev,
>> bool *stop_tick)
>> {
>> - return cpuidle_curr_governor->select(drv, dev, stop_tick);
>> + unsigned long timeout_us, ret;
>> +
>> + timeout_us = UINT_MAX;
>> + ret = cpuidle_curr_governor->select(drv, dev, stop_tick, &timeout_us);
>> + cpuidle_auto_promotion_update(dev->cpu, timeout_us);
>> +
>> + return ret;
>> }
>>
>> /**
>> @@ -658,6 +722,8 @@ int cpuidle_register(struct cpuidle_driver *drv,
>> device = &per_cpu(cpuidle_dev, cpu);
>> device->cpu = cpu;
>>
>> + cpuidle_auto_promotion_init(cpu, drv);
>> +
>> #ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_NEEDS_CPU_IDLE_COUPLED
>> /*
>> * On multiplatform for ARM, the coupled idle states could be
>> diff --git a/drivers/cpuidle/governors/ladder.c b/drivers/cpuidle/governors/ladder.c
>> index f0dddc66a..65b518dd7 100644
>> --- a/drivers/cpuidle/governors/ladder.c
>> +++ b/drivers/cpuidle/governors/ladder.c
>> @@ -64,7 +64,8 @@ static inline void ladder_do_selection(struct ladder_device *ldev,
>> * @dummy: not used
> I think you need an addition to the docstring for your new variable.
>
>> */
>> static int ladder_select_state(struct cpuidle_driver *drv,
>> - struct cpuidle_device *dev, bool *dummy)
>> + struct cpuidle_device *dev, bool *dummy,
>> + unsigned long *unused)
>> {
>> struct ladder_device *ldev = this_cpu_ptr(&ladder_devices);
>> struct ladder_device_state *last_state;
>> diff --git a/drivers/cpuidle/governors/menu.c b/drivers/cpuidle/governors/menu.c
>> index 5951604e7..835e337de 100644
>> --- a/drivers/cpuidle/governors/menu.c
>> +++ b/drivers/cpuidle/governors/menu.c
>> @@ -276,7 +276,7 @@ static unsigned int get_typical_interval(struct menu_device *data,
>> * @stop_tick: indication on whether or not to stop the tick
> Likewise here.
>
>> */
>> static int menu_select(struct cpuidle_driver *drv, struct cpuidle_device *dev,
>> - bool *stop_tick)
>> + bool *stop_tick, unsigned long *timeout)
>> {
>> struct menu_device *data = this_cpu_ptr(&menu_devices);
>> int latency_req = cpuidle_governor_latency_req(dev->cpu);
>> @@ -442,6 +442,26 @@ static int menu_select(struct cpuidle_driver *drv, struct cpuidle_device *dev,
>> }
>> }
>>
>> +#ifdef CPUIDLE_FLAG_AUTO_PROMOTION
>> + if (drv->states[idx].flags & CPUIDLE_FLAG_AUTO_PROMOTION) {
>> + /*
>> + * Timeout is intended to be defined as sum of target residency
>> + * of next available state, entry latency and exit latency. If
>> + * time interval equal to timeout is spent in current state,
>> + * and if it is a shallow lite state, we may want to auto-
>> + * promote from such state.
> This comment makes sense if you already understand auto-promotion. That's
> fair enough - you wrote it and you presumably understand what your code
> does :) But for me it's a bit confusing! I think you want to start with
> a sentence about what autopromotion is (preferably not using
> power-specific terminology) and then explain the calculation of the
> timeouts.
>
>> + */
>> + for (i = idx + 1; i < drv->state_count; i++) {
>> + if (drv->states[i].disabled ||
>> + dev->states_usage[i].disable)
>> + continue;
>> + *timeout = drv->states[i].target_residency +
>> + 2 * drv->states[i].exit_latency;
>> + break;
>> + }
>> + }
>> +#endif
>> +
>> return idx;
>> }
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/cpuidle.h b/include/linux/cpuidle.h
>> index 3b3947232..84d76d1ec 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/cpuidle.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/cpuidle.h
>> @@ -72,6 +72,13 @@ struct cpuidle_state {
>> #define CPUIDLE_FLAG_POLLING BIT(0) /* polling state */
>> #define CPUIDLE_FLAG_COUPLED BIT(1) /* state applies to multiple cpus */
>> #define CPUIDLE_FLAG_TIMER_STOP BIT(2) /* timer is stopped on this state */
>> +/*
>> + * State with only and only fast state bit set don't even lose user context.
> "only and only"?
>> + * But such states prevent other sibling threads from thread folding benefits.
>> + * And hence we don't want to stay for too long in such states and want to
>> + * auto-promote from it.
> I think this comment mixes Power-specific and generic concepts. (But I'm
> not a PM expert so tell me if I'm wrong here.) I think, if I've
> understood correctly: in the generic code, the bit represents a state
> that we do not want to linger in, which we want to definitely leave
> after some time. On Power, we have a state that doesn't lose user
> context but which prevents thread folding, so this is an example of a
> state where we want to auto-promote.
>
>> + */
>> +#define CPUIDLE_FLAG_AUTO_PROMOTION BIT(3)
>>
>> struct cpuidle_device_kobj;
>> struct cpuidle_state_kobj;
>> @@ -243,7 +250,8 @@ struct cpuidle_governor {
>>
>> int (*select) (struct cpuidle_driver *drv,
>> struct cpuidle_device *dev,
>> - bool *stop_tick);
>> + bool *stop_tick, unsigned long
>> + *timeout);
>> void (*reflect) (struct cpuidle_device *dev, int index);
>> };
>>
>> --
>> 2.17.1

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-04-09 11:29    [W:0.089 / U:3.688 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site