[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1404404770-323-21-git-send-email-morten.rasmussen@arm.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 17:26:07 +0100
From: Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...nel.org
Cc: rjw@...ysocki.net, vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
daniel.lezcano@...aro.org, preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
Dietmar.Eggemann@....com, pjt@...gle.com
Subject: [RFCv2 PATCH 20/23] sched: Take task wakeups into account in energy estimates
The energy cost of waking a cpu and sending it back to sleep can be
quite significant for short running frequently waking tasks if placed on
an idle cpu in a deep sleep state. By factoring task wakeups in such
tasks can be placed on cpus where the wakeup energy cost is lower. For
example, partly utilized cpus in a shallower idle state, or cpus in a
cluster/die that is already awake.
Current cpu utilization of the target cpu is factored in to guess how
many task wakeups translate into cpu wakeups (idle exits). It is a
very naive approach, but it is virtually impossible to get an accurate
estimate.
wake_energy(task) = unused_util(cpu) * wakeups(task) * wakeup_energy(cpu)
There is no per cpu wakeup tracking, so we can't estimate the energy
savings when removing tasks from a cpu. It is also nearly impossible to
figure out which task is the cause of cpu wakeups if multiple tasks are
scheduled on the same cpu.
wakeup_energy for each idle-state is obtained from the idle_states array.
A prediction of the most likely idle-state is needed. cpuidle is best
placed to provide that. It is not implemented yet.
Signed-off-by: Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>
---
kernel/sched/fair.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++----
1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
index 6da8e2b..aebf3e2 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
@@ -4367,11 +4367,13 @@ static inline unsigned long get_curr_capacity(int cpu);
* + (1-curr_util(sg)) * idle_power(sg)
* energy_after = new_util(sg) * busy_power(sg)
* + (1-new_util(sg)) * idle_power(sg)
+ * + (1-new_util(sg)) * task_wakeups
+ * * wakeup_energy(sg)
* energy_diff += energy_before - energy_after
* }
*
*/
-static int energy_diff_util(int cpu, int util)
+static int energy_diff_util(int cpu, int util, int wakeups)
{
struct sched_domain *sd;
int i;
@@ -4476,7 +4478,8 @@ static int energy_diff_util(int cpu, int util)
* The utilization change has no impact at this level (or any
* parent level).
*/
- if (aff_util_bef == aff_util_aft && curr_cap_idx == new_cap_idx)
+ if (aff_util_bef == aff_util_aft && curr_cap_idx == new_cap_idx
+ && unused_util_aft < 100)
goto unlock;
/* Energy before */
@@ -4486,6 +4489,14 @@ static int energy_diff_util(int cpu, int util)
/* Energy after */
nrg_diff += (aff_util_aft*new_state->power)/new_state->cap;
nrg_diff += (unused_util_aft * is->power)/new_state->cap;
+
+ /*
+ * Estimate how many of the wakeups that happens while cpu is
+ * idle assuming they are uniformly distributed. Ignoring
+ * wakeups caused by other tasks.
+ */
+ nrg_diff += (wakeups * is->wu_energy >> 10)
+ * unused_util_aft/new_state->cap;
}
/*
@@ -4516,6 +4527,8 @@ static int energy_diff_util(int cpu, int util)
/* Energy after */
nrg_diff += (aff_util_aft*new_state->power)/new_state->cap;
nrg_diff += (unused_util_aft * is->power)/new_state->cap;
+ nrg_diff += (wakeups * is->wu_energy >> 10)
+ * unused_util_aft/new_state->cap;
}
unlock:
@@ -4532,8 +4545,8 @@ static int energy_diff_task(int cpu, struct task_struct *p)
if (!cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, tsk_cpus_allowed(p)))
return INT_MAX;
- return energy_diff_util(cpu, p->se.avg.uw_load_avg_contrib);
-
+ return energy_diff_util(cpu, p->se.avg.uw_load_avg_contrib,
+ p->se.avg.wakeup_avg_sum);
}
static int wake_wide(struct task_struct *p)
--
1.7.9.5
--
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