| 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: <CAJZ5v0hO2T41qkPNETqJv7yfJ-=V34gqr_gEy7bNxg83e5HB+g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 22:59:26 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: Stratos Karafotis <stratosk@...aphore.gr>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] cpufreq: conservative: Decrease frequency faster when
the update deferred
On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 10:46 PM, Stratos Karafotis
<stratosk@...aphore.gr> wrote:
>
>
> On 14/11/2016 10:44 μμ, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 12, 2016 at 10:04 PM, Stratos Karafotis
>> <stratosk@...aphore.gr> wrote:
>>> Conservative governor changes the CPU frequency in steps.
>>> That means that if a CPU runs at max frequency, it will need several
>>> sampling periods to return to min frequency when the workload
>>> is finished.
>>>
>>> If the update function that calculates the load and target frequency
>>> is deferred, the governor might need even more time to decrease the
>>> frequency.
>>>
>>> This may have impact to power consumption and after all conservative
>>> should decrease the frequency if there is no workload at every sampling
>>> rate.
>>>
>>> To resolve the above issue calculate the number of sampling periods
>>> that the update is deferred. Considering that for each sampling period
>>> conservative should drop the frequency by a freq_step because the
>>> CPU was idle apply the proper subtraction to requested frequency.
>>>
>>> Below, the kernel trace with and without this patch. First an
>>> intensive workload is applied on a specific CPU. Then the workload
>>> is removed and the CPU goes to idle.
>>>
>>> WITHOUT
>>>
>>> <idle>-0 [007] dN.. 620.329153: cpu_idle: state=4294967295 cpu_id=7
>>> kworker/7:2-556 [007] .... 620.350857: cpu_frequency: state=1700000 cpu_id=7
>>> kworker/7:2-556 [007] .... 620.370856: cpu_frequency: state=1900000 cpu_id=7
>>> kworker/7:2-556 [007] .... 620.390854: cpu_frequency: state=2100000 cpu_id=7
>>> kworker/7:2-556 [007] .... 620.411853: cpu_frequency: state=2200000 cpu_id=7
>>> kworker/7:2-556 [007] .... 620.432854: cpu_frequency: state=2400000 cpu_id=7
>>> kworker/7:2-556 [007] .... 620.453854: cpu_frequency: state=2600000 cpu_id=7
>>> kworker/7:2-556 [007] .... 620.494856: cpu_frequency: state=2900000 cpu_id=7
>>> kworker/7:2-556 [007] .... 620.515856: cpu_frequency: state=3100000 cpu_id=7
>>> kworker/7:2-556 [007] .... 620.536858: cpu_frequency: state=3300000 cpu_id=7
>>> kworker/7:2-556 [007] .... 620.557857: cpu_frequency: state=3401000 cpu_id=7
>>> <idle>-0 [007] d... 669.591363: cpu_idle: state=4 cpu_id=7
>>> <idle>-0 [007] d... 669.591939: cpu_idle: state=4294967295 cpu_id=7
>>> <idle>-0 [007] d... 669.591980: cpu_idle: state=4 cpu_id=7
>>> <idle>-0 [007] dN.. 669.591989: cpu_idle: state=4294967295 cpu_id=7
>>> ...
>>> <idle>-0 [007] d... 670.201224: cpu_idle: state=4 cpu_id=7
>>> <idle>-0 [007] d... 670.221975: cpu_idle: state=4294967295 cpu_id=7
>>> kworker/7:2-556 [007] .... 670.222016: cpu_frequency: state=3300000 cpu_id=7
>>> <idle>-0 [007] d... 670.222026: cpu_idle: state=4 cpu_id=7
>>> <idle>-0 [007] d... 670.234964: cpu_idle: state=4294967295 cpu_id=7
>>> ...
>>> <idle>-0 [007] d... 670.801251: cpu_idle: state=4 cpu_id=7
>>> <idle>-0 [007] d... 671.236046: cpu_idle: state=4294967295 cpu_id=7
>>> kworker/7:2-556 [007] .... 671.236073: cpu_frequency: state=3100000 cpu_id=7
>>> <idle>-0 [007] d... 671.236112: cpu_idle: state=4 cpu_id=7
>>> <idle>-0 [007] d... 671.393437: cpu_idle: state=4294967295 cpu_id=7
>>> ...
>>> <idle>-0 [007] d... 671.401277: cpu_idle: state=4 cpu_id=7
>>> <idle>-0 [007] d... 671.404083: cpu_idle: state=4294967295 cpu_id=7
>>> kworker/7:2-556 [007] .... 671.404111: cpu_frequency: state=2900000 cpu_id=7
>>> <idle>-0 [007] d... 671.404125: cpu_idle: state=4 cpu_id=7
>>> <idle>-0 [007] d... 671.404974: cpu_idle: state=4294967295 cpu_id=7
>>> ...
>>> <idle>-0 [007] d... 671.501180: cpu_idle: state=4 cpu_id=7
>>> <idle>-0 [007] d... 671.995414: cpu_idle: state=4294967295 cpu_id=7
>>> kworker/7:2-556 [007] .... 671.995459: cpu_frequency: state=2800000 cpu_id=7
>>> <idle>-0 [007] d... 671.995469: cpu_idle: state=4 cpu_id=7
>>> <idle>-0 [007] d... 671.996287: cpu_idle: state=4294967295 cpu_id=7
>>> ...
>>> <idle>-0 [007] d... 672.001305: cpu_idle: state=4 cpu_id=7
>>> <idle>-0 [007] d... 672.078374: cpu_idle: state=4294967295 cpu_id=7
>>> kworker/7:2-556 [007] .... 672.078410: cpu_frequency: state=2600000 cpu_id=7
>>> <idle>-0 [007] d... 672.078419: cpu_idle: state=4 cpu_id=7
>>> <idle>-0 [007] d... 672.158020: cpu_idle: state=4294967295 cpu_id=7
>>> kworker/7:2-556 [007] .... 672.158040: cpu_frequency: state=2400000 cpu_id=7
>>> <idle>-0 [007] d... 672.158044: cpu_idle: state=4 cpu_id=7
>>> <idle>-0 [007] d... 672.160038: cpu_idle: state=4294967295 cpu_id=7
>>> ...
>>> <idle>-0 [007] d... 672.234557: cpu_idle: state=4 cpu_id=7
>>> <idle>-0 [007] d... 672.237121: cpu_idle: state=4294967295 cpu_id=7
>>> kworker/7:2-556 [007] .... 672.237174: cpu_frequency: state=2100000 cpu_id=7
>>> <idle>-0 [007] d... 672.237186: cpu_idle: state=4 cpu_id=7
>>> <idle>-0 [007] d... 672.237778: cpu_idle: state=4294967295 cpu_id=7
>>> ...
>>> <idle>-0 [007] d... 672.267902: cpu_idle: state=4 cpu_id=7
>>> <idle>-0 [007] d... 672.269860: cpu_idle: state=4294967295 cpu_id=7
>>> kworker/7:2-556 [007] .... 672.269906: cpu_frequency: state=1900000 cpu_id=7
>>> <idle>-0 [007] d... 672.269914: cpu_idle: state=4 cpu_id=7
>>> <idle>-0 [007] d... 672.271902: cpu_idle: state=4294967295 cpu_id=7
>>> ...
>>> <idle>-0 [007] d... 672.751342: cpu_idle: state=4 cpu_id=7
>>> <idle>-0 [007] d... 672.823056: cpu_idle: state=4294967295 cpu_id=7
>>> kworker/7:2-556 [007] .... 672.823095: cpu_frequency: state=1600000 cpu_id=7
>>>
>>> WITH
>>>
>>> <idle>-0 [007] dN.. 4380.928009: cpu_idle: state=4294967295 cpu_id=7
>>> kworker/7:2-399 [007] .... 4380.949767: cpu_frequency: state=2000000 cpu_id=7
>>> kworker/7:2-399 [007] .... 4380.969765: cpu_frequency: state=2200000 cpu_id=7
>>> kworker/7:2-399 [007] .... 4381.009766: cpu_frequency: state=2500000 cpu_id=7
>>> kworker/7:2-399 [007] .... 4381.029767: cpu_frequency: state=2600000 cpu_id=7
>>> kworker/7:2-399 [007] .... 4381.049769: cpu_frequency: state=2800000 cpu_id=7
>>> kworker/7:2-399 [007] .... 4381.069769: cpu_frequency: state=3000000 cpu_id=7
>>> kworker/7:2-399 [007] .... 4381.089771: cpu_frequency: state=3100000 cpu_id=7
>>> kworker/7:2-399 [007] .... 4381.109772: cpu_frequency: state=3400000 cpu_id=7
>>> kworker/7:2-399 [007] .... 4381.129773: cpu_frequency: state=3401000 cpu_id=7
>>> <idle>-0 [007] d... 4428.226159: cpu_idle: state=1 cpu_id=7
>>> <idle>-0 [007] d... 4428.226176: cpu_idle: state=4294967295 cpu_id=7
>>> <idle>-0 [007] d... 4428.226181: cpu_idle: state=4 cpu_id=7
>>> <idle>-0 [007] d... 4428.227177: cpu_idle: state=4294967295 cpu_id=7
>>> ...
>>> <idle>-0 [007] d... 4428.551640: cpu_idle: state=4 cpu_id=7
>>> <idle>-0 [007] d... 4428.649239: cpu_idle: state=4294967295 cpu_id=7
>>> kworker/7:2-399 [007] .... 4428.649268: cpu_frequency: state=2800000 cpu_id=7
>>> <idle>-0 [007] d... 4428.649278: cpu_idle: state=4 cpu_id=7
>>> <idle>-0 [007] d... 4428.689856: cpu_idle: state=4294967295 cpu_id=7
>>> ...
>>> <idle>-0 [007] d... 4428.799542: cpu_idle: state=4 cpu_id=7
>>> <idle>-0 [007] d... 4428.801683: cpu_idle: state=4294967295 cpu_id=7
>>> kworker/7:2-399 [007] .... 4428.801748: cpu_frequency: state=1700000 cpu_id=7
>>> <idle>-0 [007] d... 4428.801761: cpu_idle: state=4 cpu_id=7
>>> <idle>-0 [007] d... 4428.806545: cpu_idle: state=4294967295 cpu_id=7
>>> ...
>>> <idle>-0 [007] d... 4429.051880: cpu_idle: state=4 cpu_id=7
>>> <idle>-0 [007] d... 4429.086240: cpu_idle: state=4294967295 cpu_id=7
>>> kworker/7:2-399 [007] .... 4429.086293: cpu_frequency: state=1600000 cpu_id=7
>>>
>>> Without the patch the CPU dropped to min frequency after 3.2s
>>> With the patch applied the CPU dropped to min frequency after 0.86s
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Stratos Karafotis <stratosk@...aphore.gr>
>>> ---
>>> v1 -> v2
>>> - Use correct terminology in change log
>>> - Change the member variable name from 'deferred_periods' to 'idle_periods'
>>> - Fix format issue
>>>
>>> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c | 14 +++++++++++++-
>>> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c | 18 +++++++++++++-----
>>> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.h | 1 +
>>> 3 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c
>>> index fa5ece3..d787772 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c
>>> @@ -73,7 +73,19 @@ static unsigned int cs_dbs_update(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>>> */
>>> if (cs_tuners->freq_step == 0)
>>> goto out;
>>> -
>>> + /*
>>> + * Decrease requested_freq for each idle period that we didn't
>>> + * update the frequency
>>> + */
>>> + if (policy_dbs->idle_periods < UINT_MAX) {
>>> + unsigned int freq_target = policy_dbs->idle_periods *
>>> + get_freq_target(cs_tuners, policy);
>>> + if (requested_freq > freq_target)
>>> + requested_freq -= freq_target;
>>> + else
>>> + requested_freq = policy->min;
>>> + policy_dbs->idle_periods = UINT_MAX;
>>> + }
>>> /*
>>> * If requested_freq is out of range, it is likely that the limits
>>> * changed in the meantime, so fall back to current frequency in that
>>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c
>>> index 3729474..1bc7137 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_governor.c
>>> @@ -117,7 +117,7 @@ unsigned int dbs_update(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>>> struct policy_dbs_info *policy_dbs = policy->governor_data;
>>> struct dbs_data *dbs_data = policy_dbs->dbs_data;
>>> unsigned int ignore_nice = dbs_data->ignore_nice_load;
>>> - unsigned int max_load = 0;
>>> + unsigned int max_load = 0, idle_periods = UINT_MAX;
>>> unsigned int sampling_rate, io_busy, j;
>>>
>>> /*
>>> @@ -163,8 +163,12 @@ unsigned int dbs_update(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>>> * calls, so the previous load value can be used then.
>>> */
>>> load = j_cdbs->prev_load;
>>> - } else if (unlikely(time_elapsed > 2 * sampling_rate &&
>>> - j_cdbs->prev_load)) {
>>> + } else if (unlikely(time_elapsed > 2 * sampling_rate)) {
>>> + unsigned int periods = time_elapsed / sampling_rate;
>>> +
>>> + if (periods < idle_periods)
>>> + idle_periods = periods;
>>> +
>>> /*
>>> * If the CPU had gone completely idle and a task has
>>> * just woken up on this CPU now, it would be unfair to
>>> @@ -189,8 +193,10 @@ unsigned int dbs_update(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>>> * 'time_elapsed' (as compared to the sampling rate)
>>> * indicates this scenario.
>>> */
>>> - load = j_cdbs->prev_load;
>>> - j_cdbs->prev_load = 0;
>>> + if (j_cdbs->prev_load) {
>>> + load = j_cdbs->prev_load;
>>> + j_cdbs->prev_load = 0;
>>> + }
>>> } else {
>>> if (time_elapsed >= idle_time) {
>>> load = 100 * (time_elapsed - idle_time) / time_elapsed;
>>> @@ -218,6 +224,8 @@ unsigned int dbs_update(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>>> if (load > max_load)
>>> max_load = load;
>>> }
>>> + policy_dbs->idle_periods = idle_periods;
>>> +
>>> return max_load;
>>> }
>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(dbs_update);
>>
>> I have a murky suspicion that the changes in dbs_update() are going to
>> break something. I need to recall what it was, though.
>
> The only change in dbs_update() is the calculation of 'idle_periods'.
> If I don't miss something I left current functionality untouched.
Well, not quite. The else branch may now trigger when
j_cdbs->prev_load is zero too which it didn't do before, AFAICS.
> But you know better. :)
I simply spent some time on this code several months ago and I
wouldn't like to repeat that experience. :-)
>
> Please let me know if you want me to proceed with the changes that
> Viresh suggested.
Yes, I'm going to apply his patch.
>
> Thank you both for your time.
No problem.
Thanks,
Rafael
Powered by blists - more mailing lists