[lkml]   [2020]   [Oct]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 0/4] Clarify abstract scale usage for power values in Energy Model, EAS and IPA

On 10/29/20 3:39 PM, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 5:37 AM Lukasz Luba <> wrote:
>> On 10/20/20 1:15 AM, Doug Anderson wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 7:06 AM Lukasz Luba <> wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>> The Energy Model supports power values expressed in an abstract scale.
>>>> This has an impact on Intelligent Power Allocation (IPA) and should be
>>>> documented properly. Kernel sub-systems like EAS, IPA and DTPM
>>>> (new comming PowerCap framework) would use the new flag to capture
>>>> potential miss-configuration where the devices have registered different
>>>> power scales, thus cannot operate together.
>>>> There was a discussion below v2 of this patch series, which might help
>>>> you to get context of these changes [2].
>>>> The agreed approach is to have the DT as a source of power values expressed
>>>> always in milli-Watts and the only way to submit with abstract scale values
>>>> is via the em_dev_register_perf_domain() API.
>>>> Changes:
>>>> v3:
>>>> - added boolean flag to struct em_perf_domain and registration function
>>>> indicating if EM holds real power values in milli-Watts (suggested by
>>>> Daniel and aggreed with Quentin)
>>>> - updated documentation regarding this new flag
>>>> - dropped DT binding change for 'sustainable-power'
>>>> - added more maintainers on CC (due to patch 1/4 touching different things)
>>>> v2 [2]:
>>>> - updated sustainable power section in IPA documentation
>>>> - updated DT binding for the 'sustainable-power'
>>>> v1 [1]:
>>>> - simple documenation update with new 'abstract scale' in EAS, EM, IPA
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Lukasz Luba
>>>> [1]
>>>> [2]
>>>> Lukasz Luba (4):
>>>> PM / EM: Add a flag indicating units of power values in Energy Model
>>>> docs: Clarify abstract scale usage for power values in Energy Model
>>>> PM / EM: update the comments related to power scale
>>>> docs: power: Update Energy Model with new flag indicating power scale
>>>> .../driver-api/thermal/power_allocator.rst | 13 +++++++-
>>>> Documentation/power/energy-model.rst | 30 +++++++++++++++----
>>>> Documentation/scheduler/sched-energy.rst | 5 ++++
>>>> drivers/cpufreq/scmi-cpufreq.c | 3 +-
>>>> drivers/opp/of.c | 2 +-
>>>> include/linux/energy_model.h | 20 ++++++++-----
>>>> kernel/power/energy_model.c | 26 ++++++++++++++--
>>>> 7 files changed, 81 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>>> While I don't feel like I have enough skin in the game to make any
>>> demands, I'm definitely not a huge fan of this series still. I am a
>>> fan of documenting reality, but (to me) trying to mix stuff like this
>>> is just going to be adding needless complexity. From where I'm
>>> standing, it's a lot more of a pain to specify these types of numbers
>>> in the firmware than it is to specify them in the device tree. They
>> When you have SCMI, you receive power values from FW directly, not using
>> DT.
>>> are harder to customize per board, harder to spin, and harder to
>>> specify constraints for everything in the system (all heat generators,
>>> all cooling devices, etc). ...and since we already have a way to
>>> specify this type of thing in the device tree and that's super easy
>>> for people to do, we're going to end up with weird mixes / matches of
>>> numbers coming from different locations and now we've got to figure
>>> out which numbers we can use when and which to ignore. Ick.
>> This is not that bad as you described. When you have SCMI and FW
>> all your perf domains should be aligned to the same scale.
>> In example, you have 4 little CPU, 3 big CPUs, 1 super big CPU,
>> 1 GPU, 1 DSP. For all of them the SCMI get_power callback should return
>> consistent values. You don't have to specify anything else or rev-eng.
>> Then a client like EAS would use those values from CPUs to estimate
>> energy and this works fine. Another client: IPA, which would use
>> all of them and also works fine.
> I guess I'm confused. When using SCMI and FW, are there already code
> paths to get the board-specific "sustainable-power" from SCMI and FW?
> I know that "sustainable-power" is not truly necessary. IIRC some of
> the code assumes that the lowest power state of all components must be
> sustainable and uses that. However, though this makes the code work,
> it's far from ideal. I don't want to accept a mediocre solution here.

As you said, sustainable power would be estimated when it is not coming
from DT. Currently it would be done based on lowest allowed OPPs. I am
trying to address this by marking OPP as sustainable [1]. The estimation
would be more accurate (and also the derived coefficients).

> In any case, I'm saying that even if "sustainable-power" can come from
> firmware, it's not as ideal of a place for it to live. Maybe my
> experience on Chromebooks is different from the rest of upstream, but
> it's generally quite easy to adjust the device tree for a board and
> much harder to convince firmware folks to put a board-specific table
> of values.

The sysfs (which is there) is even easier for this adjustment than DT.

>>> In my opinion the only way to allow for mixing and matching the
>>> bogoWatts and real Watts would be to actually have units and the
>>> ability to provide a conversion factor somewhere. Presumably that
>>> might give you a chance of mixing and matching if someone wants to
>>> provide some stuff in device tree and get other stuff from the
>>> firmware. Heck, I guess you could even magically figure out a
>>> conversion factor if someone provides device tree numbers for
>>> something that was already registered in SCMI, assuming all the SCMI
>>> numbers are consistent with each other...
>> What you demand here is another code path, just to support revers
>> engineered power values for SCMI devices, which are stored in DT.
>> Then the SCMI protocol code and drivers should take them into account
>> and abandon standard implementation and use these values to provide
>> 'hacked' power numbers to EM. Am I right?
>> It is not going to happen.
> Quite honestly, all I want to be able to do is to provide a
> board-specific "sustainable-power" and have it match with the
> power-coefficients. Thus:
> * If device tree accepted abstract scale, we'd be done and I'd shut
> up. ...but Rob has made it quite clear that this is a no-go.
> * If it was super easy to add all these values into firmware for a
> board and we could totally remove these from the device tree, I'd
> grumble a bit about firmware being a terrible place for this but at
> least we'd have a solution and we'd be done and I'd shut up. NOTE: I
> don't know ATF terribly well, but I'd guess that this needs to go
> there? Presumably part of this is convincing firmware folks to add
> this board-specific value there...

The SCMI spec that we are talking supports 'sustained performance'
level for each performance domain. You can check doc [2] table 11
for the definition. In SCMI there is no concept of 'sustainable-power'
which would substitute the missing DT value. But we can estimate it
more accurately based on sustainable OPP.
You can check how I am going to feed that FW value into the OPP in patch
4/4 of [3]. I am also working on improved estimation patch set v4 for
IPA (some description of an issue in v2 [4], latest v3 is here [5]),
which is using the proposed sustainable OPP concept (Viresh mentioned
he would like to see the user of that).

As you can see, I am not going to leave you with this issue ;)



> -Doug

 \ /
  Last update: 2020-10-29 17:17    [W:0.219 / U:0.024 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site