Message-ID: <CAME+o4=iz+gRoQ_PxDuzXgpQVbWNOYc_n9BLEPj8PAU0bHLi6g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 30 Dec 2013 12:48:57 -0800
From:	Zoran Markovic <zoran.markovic@...aro.org>
To:	Eduardo Valentin <eduardo.valentin@...com>
Cc:	Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@...durent.com>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>, Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>,
	Amit Daniel Kachhap <amit.daniel@...sung.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Durgadoss R <durgadoss.r@...el.com>,
	Christian Daudt <bcm@...thebug.org>,
	James King <james.king@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] thermal: add generic cpu hotplug cooling device

Eduardo,

>> What is the workload you're running besides the proprietary heater code?
I re-did experiments from Linaro's site pointed by Amit while
profiling _cpu_down() and _cpu_up() times:
>> [1] https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/PowerManagement/Archives/Hotplug

I am attaching a spreadsheet with some results and graphs:

Sheet 1 (thermal_ramp) has three plots. Topmost is an unbound thermal
ramp that levels off at ~48C. Middle plot is a thermal ramp with cpu
hotplug kicking in as a cooling device at 38C. Bottom plot is a
thermal ramp with cpu hotplug kicking in at 38C and cpufreq kicking in
at 40C. One interesting thing to note is that the middle plot slowly
drifts towards 40C even though cooling is set to 38C. I attribute this
to the logic of step-wise governor combined with polling mode: if
temperature is dropping above trip point, cooling is reduced. Adding
another cooling device at 40C as a back-stop seems to keep temperature
in check. In all cases running code was ARM's max_power test that
maximizes CPU usage, as evidenced by results of 'top':
  PID USER      PR  NI  VIRT  RES  SHR S  %CPU %MEM    TIME+  COMMAND
   33 root      20   0     0    0    0 R 100.0  0.0  45:46.43 thread1
   32 root      20   0     0    0    0 R  91.4  0.0  44:48.14 thread0
 1344 root      20   0     0    0    0 R   8.6  0.0   0:03.64 kworker/u4:1
 1380 root      20   0  2476  996  712 R   0.3  0.1   0:00.07 top

Sheet 2 (idle) has two plots. Top one represents latency of
_cpu_down() while gradually adding instances of cyclictest process,
from 0 to 10; 20 samples were captured in each case. Bottom one
represents latency of _cpu_up() in the same test. Other than running
cyclictest, the system was mostly idle.

Sheet 3 (max_power) repeated the same test as in sheet 2, but it was
running ARM's max_power test in the background.

A quick look at the latency graphs shows that loading the system
causes a stochastic - but not deterministic - component added to
latencies. Minimum latency times appear unchanged.

> - Homogeneous dual core Cortex-A9 environment.
> - They go up to 48C when fully loaded. Can you explain where is your
> sensor location? Gradient to hotspot, etc? 48C at A9s or board temperature?
Thermal sensor is located at L2 cache, with gradient to sensor likely
smaller than sensor inaccuracy.

> - This code looks promising on embedded dual core system. However, it
> does not necessarily mean it works fine on, say server side. How about a
> system with 8/16/32 cores? How about a more heterogeneous workload? Not
> to talk about heterogeneous cores. I think in more complicated scenarios
> the data you provided above might even change. The difference between
> your minimum and maximum shutdown/startup times are quite considerable,
> so I am assuming your variance is not negligible, imaging if we scale
> this up, what happens?
Agreed that this is difficult to characterize across all platform
types. Maybe other list members could comment the behaviour on their
platforms? Passing in a cpu mask defines CPUs that contribute to
cooling of a single zone, so there is some flexibility in defining
cooling strategy. Hopefully this is good enough for a start...

>
> - The other point is that this type of cooling device must be taken in
> very sensible way. Shutting down circuitry may not be the best strategy
> for thermal. In fact, if you think about it, given you have a workload
> well balanced between, say, two cores, as same of your environment,
> turning one off it means you need to deal the very same load in only one
> CPU. In other words, turning of circuitry means, from thermal standpoint
> that you are increasing you heat/area ratio. Sometimes, you actually
> want to increase this ratio in order to properly cool down your system.
In this particular test case since both CPUs are fully loaded,
temperature is reduced at the expense of parallelism (i.e. execution
time), so overall heat/area is still reduced. If particular areas are
heat-sensitive, then it makes sense to define a separate thermal zone
(and sensor) for each of them. Just a thought.

Looking forward to further discussion.

Regards,
Zoran

Download attachment "capri_thermal_analysis.xls" of type "application/vnd.ms-excel" (133632 bytes)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists