linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] cpuidle: Add 'above' and 'below' idle state metrics

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]

Message-ID: <20181210122104.GL5289@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Mon, 10 Dec 2018 13:21:04 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc:     Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Doug Smythies <dsmythies@...us.net>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Documentation <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
        Giovanni Gherdovich <ggherdovich@...e.cz>,
        Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] cpuidle: Add 'above' and 'below' idle state metrics

On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 12:30:23PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
> 
> Add two new metrics for CPU idle states, "above" and "below", to count
> the number of times the given state had been asked for (or entered
> from the kernel's perspective), but the observed idle duration turned
> out to be too short or too long for it (respectively).
> 
> These metrics help to estimate the quality of the CPU idle governor
> in use.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>

> @@ -260,6 +262,33 @@ int cpuidle_enter_state(struct cpuidle_d
>  		dev->last_residency = (int)diff;
>  		dev->states_usage[entered_state].time += dev->last_residency;
>  		dev->states_usage[entered_state].usage++;
> +
> +		if (diff < drv->states[entered_state].target_residency) {
> +			for (i = entered_state - 1; i >= 0; i--) {
> +				if (drv->states[i].disabled ||
> +				    dev->states_usage[i].disable)
> +					continue;
> +
> +				/* Shallower states are enabled, so update. */
> +				dev->states_usage[entered_state].above++;
> +				break;
> +			}
> +		} else if (diff > delay) {
> +			for (i = entered_state + 1; i < drv->state_count; i++) {
> +				if (drv->states[i].disabled ||
> +				    dev->states_usage[i].disable)
> +					continue;
> +
> +				/*
> +				 * Update if a deeper state would have been a
> +				 * better match for the observed idle duration.
> +				 */
> +				if (diff - delay >= drv->states[i].target_residency)
> +					dev->states_usage[entered_state].below++;
> +
> +				break;
> +			}
> +		}

One question on this; why is this tracked unconditionally?

Would not a tracepoint be better?; then there is no overhead in the
normal case where nobody gives a crap about these here numbers.