| 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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 00:53:19 +0200
From: Stratos Karafotis <stratosk@...aphore.gr>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc: "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 15/11/2016 12:09 πμ, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 10:59 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> What I mean is that the "if else" never triggers when
> j_cdbs->prev_load is zero before the change, but that changes, so the
> "else" branch will not cover the "j_cdbs->prev_load equal to zero"
> case any more. I'm not sure how much that matters ATM, though.
Yes, I understood your point. You are absolutely right. The patch
introduces a bug there:
If time_elapsed > 2 * sampling_rate, it calculates the idle_periods.
Finally checks prev_load. If the prev_load equals to zero
there is no load calculation at all.
Because, as you mentioned, the "else" branch will not cover this case.
So, we would have a load value only for the first deferred update and
zero load if the update is deferred again.
> Sent too quickly, sorry.
I'm sorry for this mistake. My apologies.
I will fix the patch and resend it.
Thanks,
Stratos
Powered by blists - more mailing lists