| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <518C3502.2040306@linaro.org>
Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 01:45:06 +0200
From: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
To: Lianwei Wang <lianwei.wang@...il.com>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH] cpuidle: don't wakeup processor when set a
longer latency
On 05/09/2013 09:14 AM, Lianwei Wang wrote:
> Thank you very much. I have a quick updated patch based on your comments.
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c
> index 2f0083a..cd1af4b 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c
> @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@
> #include <linux/ktime.h>
> #include <linux/hrtimer.h>
> #include <linux/module.h>
> +#include <linux/tick.h>
> #include <trace/events/power.h>
>
> #include "cpuidle.h"
> @@ -466,7 +467,20 @@ static void smp_callback(void *v)
> static int cpuidle_latency_notify(struct notifier_block *b,
> unsigned long l, void *v)
> {
> - smp_call_function(smp_callback, NULL, 1);
> + int cpu, rcpu = smp_processor_id();
> + s64 s;
> + struct tick_device *td;
> +
> + for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
> + if (cpu == rcpu)
> + continue;
> + td = tick_get_device(cpu);
> + s = ktime_us_delta(td->evtdev->next_event, ktime_get());
> + if ((long)l < (long)s) {
> + smp_call_function_single(cpu, smp_callback, NULL, 1);
> + }
> + }
> +
> return NOTIFY_OK;
> }
The patch sounds reasonable. A comment and explicit names for the
variables would be nice.
eg.
l => latency
s => sleep
> Thanks,
> Lianwei
>
> 2013/5/8 Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>:
>> On 05/08/2013 04:44 AM, Lianwei Wang wrote:
>>> When a PM-Qos is updated, the cpuidle driver will wakeup all the CPUs
>>> no matter what a latency is set. But actually it only need to wakeup
>>> the CPUs when a shorter latency is set. In this way we can reduce the
>>> cpu wakeup count and save battery.
>>
>> I am curious, how many times could the pm_qos be changed in a system
>> live cycle to measure an improvement with this patch ?
>>
>> Do you have a scenario where you measured a noticeable power saving ?
>>
> The PM-Qos is not updated most of time, especially for home idle case.
> But for some specific case, the PM-Qos may update too frequently.
> (E.g. my measurement show that it is changed frequently between
> 2us/3us/200us/200s for bootup and usb case.) The battery current drain
> is measured from PMIC or battery eliminator. Although this is just a
> little saving, it is still reasonable to improve it.
Thanks for the information. Can you add this information in the changelog ?
>>> So we can pass the prev_value to the notifier callback and check the
>>> latency curr_value and prev_value in the cpuidle latency notifier
>>> callback. It modify a common interface(dummy --> prev_value) but shall
>>> be safe since no one use the dummy parameter currently.
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c
>>> index e1f6860..1e1758c 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c
>>> @@ -498,7 +498,11 @@ static void smp_callback(void *v)
>>> static int cpuidle_latency_notify(struct notifier_block *b,
>>> unsigned long l, void *v)
>>> {
>>> - smp_call_function(smp_callback, NULL, 1);
>>> + unsigned long prev_value = (unsigned long) v;
>>> +
>>> + /* Dont't waktup processor when set a longer latency */
>>
>> ^^^^^^
>> wakeup
>>
>> Instead of passing prev and curr, using the dummy variable, why don't
>> you pass the result of (curr - prev) ?
>>
>> A negative value means, the latency is smaller and positive is bigger.
>>
>> Also, may be the optimization could be more improved: if the latency is
>> bigger than the next wakeup event, it is not necessary to wakeup the cpus.
>>
> This is good idea. So it need to check the next_event on each CPU and
> wakeup the cpu if the requested latency is smaller than it. A quick
> patch is attached.
Yes, it sounds good.
>>> + if (l < prev_value)
>>> + smp_call_function(smp_callback, NULL, 1);
>>> return NOTIFY_OK;
>>> }
>>>
>>> diff --git a/kernel/power/qos.c b/kernel/power/qos.c
>>> index 9322ff7..533b8bc 100644
>>> --- a/kernel/power/qos.c
>>> +++ b/kernel/power/qos.c
>>> @@ -205,7 +205,7 @@ int pm_qos_update_target(struct pm_qos_constraints
>>> *c, struct plist_node *node,
>>> if (prev_value != curr_value) {
>>> blocking_notifier_call_chain(c->notifiers,
>>> (unsigned long)curr_value,
>>> - NULL);
>>> + (void *)prev_value);
>>> return 1;
>>> } else {
>>> return 0;
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
>>
>> Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
>> <http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
>> <http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
>>
--
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
--
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