linux-kernel - RE: Re: [PATCH v3 5/7] drivers: devfreq: add longer polling interval in idle

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: <20190221055601epcms1p7b87bba9a878683453f7e46c84ed032b9@epcms1p7>
Date:   Thu, 21 Feb 2019 14:56:01 +0900
From:   MyungJoo Ham <myungjoo.ham@...sung.com>
To:     Lukasz Luba <l.luba@...tner.samsung.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
CC:     Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>,
        Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@...sung.com>,
        Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@...sung.com>,
        Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
        Sylwester Nawrocki <s.nawrocki@...sung.com>,
        "tkjos@...gle.com" <tkjos@...gle.com>,
        "joel@...lfernandes.org" <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        "chris.diamand@....com" <chris.diamand@....com>,
        "mka@...omium.org" <mka@...omium.org>,
        "rostedt@...dmis.org" <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: RE: Re: [PATCH v3 5/7] drivers: devfreq: add longer polling
 interval in idle

>> 
>> There are some requirements that you need to consider:
>> 
>> Is 30% really applicable to ALL devfreq devices?
>The 30% load while the device is on lowest OPP is to filter some noise.
>It might be tunable over sysfs for each device if you like.
>>      - What if some devices do not want such behaviors?
>They can set polling_idle_ms and polling_ms the same value.
>>      - What if some devices want different values (change behavors)?
>Need of sysfs tunable here.
>>      - What if some manufactures want different default values?
>Like above (sysfs).
>>      - What if some devices want to let the framework know that it's in idle?
>There might be a filed in devfreq->state which could handle this.
>>      - What if some other kernel context, device (drivers),
>>      or userspace process want to notify that it's no more idling?This issue is more related to the new movement in the 'interconnect'
>development. They have a goal for this kind of interactions and QoS
>between devices or their clients. In devfreq it would be possible
>to tackle this, but would require a lot of changes (notification chain,
>state machines in devices,
>
>> 
>> As mentioned in the internal thread (tizen.org),
>> I'm not convinced by the idea of assuming that a device can be considered "idling"
>> if it has simply "low" utilization.
>> 
>> You are going to deteriorate the UI response time of mobile devices significantly.
>Current devfreq wake-up also does not guarantee that, maybe on a single
>CPU platform does.

Yes, the current devfreq does not enhance UI response time in the sense
that it would keep the same reponse time anyway.

However, your current approach will surely deteriorate it by lengthen
the polling latency.

For mobile and wearable devices, in many cases I've been witnessing,
the device idles right before the user's input (launching an app,
scrolling messages or web pages, or press a play button).
For mitigation, we often relay UI inputs to DVFS mechanisms so that
we either increase frequency for any UI inputs for a short period or
shorten the polling latency for a short period.
When a highly user-interactive device is idling or operating a low frequency,
we should assume that it's going to be highly performing anytime;
loosening the checking period is not a good solution in that sense
although it is probable for servers or workstations.
But, I don't think servers/workstations do care power consumption of
DVFS checking loops anyway.



>
>I will try to address your and Chanwoo's comments that the devfreq still
>needs deferred polling in some platforms.
>Would it be OK if we have two options: deferred and delayed work while
>registering a wakeup for a device?
>That would be a function like: polling_mode_init(devfreq) instead of
>simple INIT_DEFERRED_WORK(), which will check the device's preference.
>The device driver could set a filed in 'polling_mode' to enum:
>POWER_EFFICIENT or RELIABLE_INTERVAL. For compatibility with old drivers
>where the polling_mode = 0, SYSTEM_DEFAULT_POLLING_MODE (which is one
>of these two) would be used.
>Then the two-phase-polling-interval from this patch could only be used
>for the RELIABLE_INTERVAL configuration or even dropped.

One thing I want to add is: let's not over-complicate it.
Do you have any experimental results on how much power is saved by doing this?
(and user response time losses)


Cheers,
MyungJoo