| 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: <CAJFUiJh+=AuR_9OUfiRbEKrnDDgRc=Twv=+uMu6B0CRUYmqV-A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 15:46:22 +0800
From: Lianwei Wang <lianwei.wang@...il.com>
To: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
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
smp_call_function_single may not good for quad or more cores because
it just send one interrupt one time and wait there...
Update the patch to wakeup the cpus at the same time by calling
smp_call_function_many.
diff --git a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c
index 2f0083a..e1f618f 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"
@@ -462,11 +463,34 @@ static void smp_callback(void *v)
* requirement. This means we need to get all processors out of their C-state,
* and then recalculate a new suitable C-state. Just do a cross-cpu IPI; that
* wakes them all right up.
+ * l - > latency in us
*/
static int cpuidle_latency_notify(struct notifier_block *b,
unsigned long l, void *v)
{
- smp_call_function(smp_callback, NULL, 1);
+ cpumask_var_t cpus;
+
+ if (!alloc_cpumask_var(&cpus, GFP_ATOMIC))
+ smp_call_function(smp_callback, NULL, 1);
+ else {
+ int cpu, rcpu = smp_processor_id();
+ s64 s; /* sleep_length in us */
+ 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)
+ cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, cpus);
+ }
+ preempt_disable();
+ smp_call_function_many(cpus, smp_callback, NULL, 1);
+ preempt_enable();
+ free_cpumask_var(cpus);
+ }
+
return NOTIFY_OK;
}
2013/5/13 Lianwei Wang <lianwei.wang@...il.com>:
> Thank you. Patch is updated.
>
> From 2d0b4afb5461847dcdf08a87b02015d061b12e85 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Lianwei Wang <lianwei.wang@...il.com>
> Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 10:59:24 +0800
> Subject: [PATCH] cpuidle: wakeup processor on a smaller latency
>
> Checking the PM-Qos latency and cpu idle sleep latency, and only
> wakeup the cpu if the requested PM-Qos latency is smaller than its
> idle sleep latency. This can reduce at least 50% cpu wakeup count
> on PM-Qos updated.
>
> The PM-Qos is not updated most of time, especially for home idle
> case. But for some specific case, the PM-Qos may be updated 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.
>
> Change-Id: If564fd0d9c53cf100bd85247bfd509dfeaf54c13
> Signed-off-by: Lianwei Wang <lianwei.wang@...il.com>
> ---
> drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c | 17 ++++++++++++++++-
> 1 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> diff --git a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c
> index 2f0083a..a0829ad 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"
> @@ -462,11 +463,25 @@ static void smp_callback(void *v)
> * requirement. This means we need to get all processors out of their C-state,
> * and then recalculate a new suitable C-state. Just do a cross-cpu IPI; that
> * wakes them all right up.
> + * l - > latency in us
> */
> 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; /* sleep_length in us */
> + 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;
> }
>
> --
> 1.7.4.1
>
> 2013/5/10 Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>:
>> 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
>>
Download attachment "0001-cpuidle-wakeup-processor-on-a-smaller-latency.patch" of type "application/octet-stream" (2431 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists