Date:	Fri, 31 May 2013 12:52:04 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>
Cc:	alex.shi@...el.com, peterz@...radead.org,
	preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
	efault@....de, pjt@...gle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org, arjan@...ux.intel.com,
	len.brown@...el.com, corbet@....net,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: power-efficient scheduling design


* Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> A number of patch sets related to power-efficient scheduling have been 
> posted over the last couple of months. Most of them do not have much 
> data to back them up, so I decided to do some testing.

Thanks, numbers are always welcome!

> Measurement technique:
> Time spent non-idle (not in idle state) for each cpu based on cpuidle
> ftrace events. TC2 does not have per-core power-gating, so packing
> inside the A7 cluster does not lead to any significant power savings.
> Note that any product grade hardware (TC2 is a test-chip) will very
> likely have per-core power-gating, so in those cases packing will have
> an appreciable effect on power savings.
> Measuring non-idle time rather than power should give a more clear idea
> about the effect of the patch sets given that the idle back-end is
> highly implementation specific.

Note that I still disagree with the whole design notion of having an "idle 
back-end" (and a 'cpufreq back end') separate from scheduler power saving 
policy, and none of the patch-sets offered so far solve this fundamental 
design problem.

PeterZ and me tried to point out the design requirements previously, but 
it still does not appear to be clear enough to people, so let me spell it 
out again, in a hopefully clearer fashion.

The scheduler has valuable power saving information available:

 - when a CPU is busy: about how long the current task expects to run

 - when a CPU is idle: how long the current CPU expects _not_ to run

 - topology: it knows how the CPUs and caches interrelate and already 
   optimizes based on that

 - various high level and low level load averages and other metrics about 
   the recent past that show how busy a particular CPU is, how busy the 
   whole system is, and what the runtime properties of individual tasks is 
   (how often it sleeps, etc.)

so the scheduler is in an _ideal_ position to do a judgement call about 
the near future and estimate how deep an idle state a CPU core should 
enter into and what frequency it should run at.

The scheduler is also at a high enough level to host a "I want maximum 
performance, power does not matter to me" user policy override switch and 
similar user policy details.

No ifs and whens about that.

Today the power saving landscape is fragmented and sad: we just randomly 
interface scheduler task packing changes with some idle policy (and 
cpufreq policy), which might or might not combine correctly.

Even when the numbers improve, it's an entirely random, essentially 
unmaintainable property: because there's no clear split (possible) between 
'scheduler policy' and 'idle policy'. This is why we removed the old, 
broken power saving scheduler code a year ago: to make room for something 
_better_.

So if we want to add back scheduler power saving then what should happen 
is genuinely better code:

To create a new low level idle driver mechanism the scheduler could use 
and integrate proper power saving / idle policy into the scheduler.

In that power saving framework the already existing scheduler topology 
information should be extended with deep idle parameters:

 - enumeration of idle states

 - how long it takes to enter+exit a particular idle state

 - [ perhaps information about how destructive to CPU caches that
     particular idle state is. ]

 - new driver entry point that allows the scheduler to enter any of the 
   enumerated idle states. Platform code will not change this state, all 
   policy decisions and the idle state is decided at the power saving 
   policy level.

All of this combines into a 'cost to enter and exit an idle state' 
estimation plus a way to enter idle states. It should be presented to the 
scheduler in a platform independent fashion, but without policy embedded: 
a low level platform driver interface in essence.

Thomas Gleixner's recent work to generalize platform idle routines will 
further help the implementation of this. (that code is upstream already)

_All_ policy, all metrics, all averaging should happen at the scheduler 
power saving level, in a single place, and then the scheduler should 
directly drive the new low level idle state driver mechanism.

'scheduler power saving' and 'idle policy' are one and the same principle 
and they should be handled in a single place to offer the best power 
saving results.

Note that any RFC patch-set that offers an implementation for this could 
be structured in a gradual fashion: only implementing it for a limited CPU 
range initially. The new framework can then be extended to more and more 
CPUs and architectures, incorporating more complicated power saving 
features gradually. (The old, existing idle policy code would remain 
untouched and available - it would simply not be used when the new policy 
is activated.)

I.e. I'm not asking for a 'rewrite the world' kind of impossible task - 
I'm providing an actionable path to get improved power saving upstream, 
but it has to use a _sane design_.

This is a "line in the sand", a 'must have' design property for any 
scheduler power saving patches to be acceptable - and I'm NAK-ing 
incomplete approaches that don't solve the root design cause of our power 
saving troubles...

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists