[lkml]   [2020]   [Feb]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 00/28] PM: QoS: Get rid of unuseful code and rework CPU latency QoS interface
On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 12:31 AM Francisco Jerez <> wrote:
> "Rafael J. Wysocki" <> writes:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > This series of patches is based on the observation that after commit
> > c3082a674f46 ("PM: QoS: Get rid of unused flags") the only global PM QoS class
> > in use is PM_QOS_CPU_DMA_LATENCY, but there is still a significant amount of
> > code dedicated to the handling of global PM QoS classes in general. That code
> > takes up space and adds overhead in vain, so it is better to get rid of it.
> >
> > Moreover, with that unuseful code removed, the interface for adding QoS
> > requests for CPU latency becomes inelegant and confusing, so it is better to
> > clean it up.
> >
> > Patches [01/28-12/28] do the first part described above, which also includes
> > some assorted cleanups of the core PM QoS code that doesn't go away.
> >
> > Patches [13/28-25/28] rework the CPU latency QoS interface (in the classic
> > "define stubs, migrate users, change the API proper" manner), patches
> > [26-27/28] update the general comments and documentation to match the code
> > after the previous changes and the last one makes the CPU latency QoS depend
> > on CPU_IDLE (because cpuidle is the only user of its target value today).
> >
> > The majority of the patches in this series don't change the functionality of
> > the code at all (at least not intentionally).
> >
> > Please refer to the changelogs of individual patches for details.
> >
> > Thanks!
> Hi Rafael,
> I believe some of the interfaces removed here could be useful in the
> near future.

I disagree.

> It goes back to the energy efficiency- (and IGP graphics
> performance-)improving series I submitted a while ago [1]. It relies on
> some mechanism for the graphics driver to report an I/O bottleneck to
> CPUFREQ, allowing it to make a more conservative trade-off between
> energy efficiency and latency, which can greatly reduce the CPU package
> energy usage of IO-bound applications (in some graphics benchmarks I've
> seen it reduced by over 40% on my ICL laptop), and therefore also allows
> TDP-bound applications to obtain a reciprocal improvement in throughput.
> I'm not particularly fond of the global PM QoS interfaces TBH, it seems
> like an excessively blunt hammer to me, so I can very much relate to the
> purpose of this series. However the finer-grained solution I've
> implemented has seen some push-back from i915 and CPUFREQ devs due to
> its complexity, since it relies on task scheduler changes in order to
> track IO bottlenecks per-process (roughly as suggested by Peter Zijlstra
> during our previous discussions), pretty much in the spirit of PELT but
> applied to IO utilization.
> With that in mind I was hoping we could take advantage of PM QoS as a
> temporary solution [2], by introducing a global PM QoS class similar but
> with roughly converse semantics to PM_QOS_CPU_DMA_LATENCY, allowing
> device drivers to report a *lower* bound on CPU latency beyond which PM
> shall not bother to reduce latency if doing so would have negative
> consequences on the energy efficiency and/or parallelism of the system.

So I really don't quite see how that could be responded to, by cpuidle
say. What exactly do you mean by "reducing latency" in particular?

> Of course one would expect the current PM_QOS_CPU_DMA_LATENCY upper
> bound to take precedence over the new lower bound in cases where the
> former is in conflict with the latter.

So that needs to be done on top of this series.

> I can think of several alternatives to that which don't involve
> temporarily holding off your clean-up,

The cleanup goes in. Please work on top of it.

> but none of them sound particularly exciting:
> 1/ Use an interface specific to CPUFREQ, pretty much like the one
> introduced in my original submission [1].

It uses frequency QoS already today, do you really need something else?

> 2/ Use per-CPU PM QoS, which AFAICT would require the graphics driver
> to either place a request on every CPU of the system (which would
> cause a frequent operation to have O(N) complexity on the number of
> CPUs on the system), or play a cat-and-mouse game with the task
> scheduler.

That's in place already too in the form of device PM QoS; see

> 3/ Add a new global PM QoS mechanism roughly duplicating the
> cpu_latency_qos_* interfaces introduced in this series. Drop your
> change making this available to CPU IDLE only.

It sounds like you really want performance for energy efficiency and
CPU latency has a little to do with that.

> 3/ Go straight to a scheduling-based approach, which is likely to
> greatly increase the review effort required to upstream this
> feature. (Peter might disagree though?)

Are you familiar with the utilization clamps mechanism?


 \ /
  Last update: 2020-02-13 01:17    [W:0.364 / U:1.780 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site