linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v3 03/10] PM: Introduce an Energy Model management framework

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 6 Jun 2018 17:26:47 +0100
From:   Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@....com>
To:     Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>
Cc:     Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>, peterz@...radead.org,
        rjw@...ysocki.net, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        mingo@...hat.com, morten.rasmussen@....com, chris.redpath@....com,
        patrick.bellasi@....com, valentin.schneider@....com,
        vincent.guittot@...aro.org, thara.gopinath@...aro.org,
        viresh.kumar@...aro.org, tkjos@...gle.com, joelaf@...gle.com,
        smuckle@...gle.com, adharmap@...cinc.com, skannan@...cinc.com,
        pkondeti@...eaurora.org, edubezval@...il.com,
        srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com, currojerez@...eup.net,
        javi.merino@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 03/10] PM: Introduce an Energy Model management
 framework

On Wednesday 06 Jun 2018 at 16:29:50 (+0100), Quentin Perret wrote:
> On Wednesday 06 Jun 2018 at 17:20:00 (+0200), Juri Lelli wrote:
> > > > This brings me to another question. Let's say there are multiple users of
> > > > the Energy Model in the system. Shouldn't the units of frequency and power
> > > > not standardized, maybe Mhz and mW?
> > > > The task scheduler doesn't care since it is only interested in power diffs
> > > > but other user might do.
> > > 
> > > So the good thing about specifying units is that we can probably assume
> > > ranges on the values. If the power is in mW, assuming that we're talking
> > > about a single CPU, it'll probably fit in 16 bits. 65W/core should be
> > > a reasonable upper-bound ?
> > > But there are also vendors who might not be happy with disclosing absolute
> > > values ... These are sometimes considered sensitive and only relative
> > > numbers are discussed publicly. Now, you can also argue that we already
> > > have units specified in IPA for ex, and that it doesn't really matter if
> > > a driver "lies" about the real value, as long as the ratios are correct.
> > > And I guess that anyone can do measurement on the hardware and get those
> > > values anyway. So specifying a unit (mW) for the power is probably a
> > > good idea.
> > 
> > Mmm, I remember we fought quite a bit while getting capacity-dmpis-mhz
> > binding accepted, and one of the musts was that the values were going to
> > be normalized. So, normalized power values again maybe?
> 
> Hmmm, that's a very good point ... There should be no problems on the
> scheduler side -- we're only interested in correct ratios. But I'm not
> sure on the thermal side ... I will double check that.

So, IPA needs to compare the power of the CPUs with the power of other
things (e.g. GPUs). So we can't normalize the power of the CPUs without
normalizing in the same scale the power of the other devices. I see two
possibilities:

1) we don't normalize the CPU power values, we specify them in mW, and
   we document (and maybe throw a warning if we see an issue at runtime)
   the max range of values. The max expected power for a single core
   could be 65K for ex (16bits). And based on that we can verify
   overflow and precision issues in the algorithms, and we keep it easy
   to compare the CPU power numbers with other devices.

2) we normalize the power values, but that means that the EM framework
   has to manage not only CPUs, but also other types of devices, and
   normalized their power values as well. That's required to keep the
   scale consistent across all of them, and keep comparisons doable.
   But if we do this, we still have to keep a normalized and a "raw"
   version of the power for all devices. And the "raw" power must still
   be in the same unit across all devices, otherwise the re-scaling is
   broken. The main benefit of doing this is that the range of
   acceptable "raw" power values can be larger, probably 32bits, and
   that the precision of the normalized range is arbitrary.

I feel like 2) involves a lot of complexity, and not so many benefits,
so I'd be happy to go with 1). Unless I forgot something ?

Thanks,
Quentin