Message-Id: <32cdf163-32b7-1011-16aa-8b40332832db@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:   Mon, 15 Apr 2019 01:34:29 +0530
From:   Abhishek <huntbag@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        "Gautham R. Shenoy" <ego@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] cpuidle : auto-promotion for cpuidle states

Hi Rafael,

Thanks for the Review. Few inline replies below.


On 04/09/2019 03:31 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 11:17 AM Abhishek Goel
> <huntbag@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>> Currently, the cpuidle governors (menu /ladder) determine what idle state
> There are three governors in 5.1-rc.
>
>> an idling CPU should enter into based on heuristics that depend on the
>> idle history on that CPU. Given that no predictive heuristic is perfect,
>> there are cases where the governor predicts a shallow idle state, hoping
>> that the CPU will be busy soon. However, if no new workload is scheduled
>> on that CPU in the near future, the CPU will end up in the shallow state.
>>
>> In case of POWER, this is problematic, when the predicted state in the
>> aforementioned scenario is a lite stop state, as such lite states will
>> inhibit SMT folding, thereby depriving the other threads in the core from
>> using the core resources.
>>
>> To address this, such lite states need to be autopromoted.
> I don't quite agree with this statement and it doesn't even match what
> the patch does AFAICS.  "Autopromotion" would be going from the given
> state to a deeper one without running state selection in between, but
> that's not what's going on here.
Thinking to call it "timed-exit". Is that good?
>> The cpuidle-core can queue timer to correspond with the residency value of the next
>> available state. Thus leading to auto-promotion to a deeper idle state as
>> soon as possible.
> No, it doesn't automatically cause a deeper state to be used next
> time.  It simply kicks the CPU out of the idle state and one more
> iteration of the idle loop runs on it.  Whether or not a deeper state
> will be selected in that iteration depends on the governor
> computations carried out in it.
I did not mean that next state is chosen automatically. I should have been
more descriptive here instead of just using "as soon as possible"
> Now, this appears to be almost analogous to the "polling" state used
> on x86 which uses the next idle state's target residency as a timeout.
>
> While generally I'm not a big fan of setting up timers in the idle
> loop (it sort of feels like pulling your own hair in order to get
> yourself out of a swamp), if idle states like these are there in your
> platform, setting up a timer to get out of them in the driver's
> ->enter() routine might not be particularly objectionable.  Doing that
> in the core is a whole different story, though.
>
> Generally, this adds quite a bit of complexity (on the "ugly" side of
> things IMO) to the core to cover a corner case present in one
> platform, while IMO it can be covered in the driver for that platform
> directly.
As of now, since this code doesn't add any benefit to the other platform,
I will post a patch with this implementation covered in platform-specific
driver code.
You are right that all the information needed for this implementation 
are also
available there in platform driver code, so we should be good to go.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists