Message-ID: <02e55a7f-8122-3745-a5c0-d46cd8450f17@arm.com>
Date:   Fri, 18 Oct 2019 17:03:10 +0100
From:   Douglas Raillard <douglas.raillard@....com>
To:     Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:THERMAL" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        viresh kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>,
        Patrick Bellasi <patrick.bellasi@...bug.net>,
        dh.han@...sung.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 0/6] sched/cpufreq: Make schedutil energy aware



On 10/18/19 4:15 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Oct 2019 at 16:44, Douglas Raillard <douglas.raillard@....com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/18/19 1:07 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 12:46:25PM +0100, Douglas Raillard wrote:
>>>
>>>>> What I don't see is how that that difference makes sense as input to:
>>>>>
>>>>>      cost(x) : (1 + x) * cost_j
>>>>
>>>> The actual input is:
>>>> x = (EM_COST_MARGIN_SCALE/SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE) * (util - util_est)
>>>>
>>>> Since EM_COST_MARGIN_SCALE == SCHED_CAPACITY_SCALE == 1024, this factor of 1
>>>> is not directly reflected in the code but is important for units
>>>> consistency.
>>>
>>> But completely irrelevant for the actual math and conceptual
>>> understanding.
>>
>>   > how that that difference makes sense as input to
>> I was unsure if you referred to the units being inconsistent or the
>> actual way of computing values being strange, so I provided some
>> justification for both.
>>
>>> Just because computers suck at real numbers, and floats
>>> are expensive, doesn't mean we have to burden ourselves with fixed point
>>> when writing equations.
>>>
>>> Also, as a physicist I'm prone to normalizing everything to 1, because
>>> that's lazy.
>>>
>>>>> I suppose that limits the additional OPP to twice the previously
>>>>> selected cost / efficiency (see the confusion from that other email).
>>>>> But given that efficency drops (or costs rise) for higher OPPs that
>>>>> still doesn't really make sense..
>>>
>>>> Yes, this current limit to +100% freq boosting is somehow arbitrary and
>>>> could probably benefit from being tunable in some way (Kconfig option
>>>> maybe). When (margin > 0), we end up selecting an OPP that has a higher cost
>>>> than the one strictly required, which is expected. The goal is to speed
>>>> things up at the expense of more power consumed to achieve the same work,
>>>> hence at a lower efficiency (== higher cost).
>>>
>>> No, no Kconfig knobs.
>>>
>>>> That's the main reason why this boosting apply a margin on the cost of the
>>>> selected OPP rather than just inflating the util. This allows controlling
>>>> directly how much more power (battery life) we are going to spend to achieve
>>>> some work that we know could be achieved with less power.
>>>
>>> But you're not; the margin is relative to the OPP, it is not absolute.
>>
>> Considering a CPU with 1024 max capacity (since we are not talking about
>> migrations here, we can ignore CPU invariance):
>>
>> work = normalized number of iterations of a given busy loop
>> # Thanks to freq invariance
>> work = util (between 0 and 1)
>> util = f/f_max
>>
>> # f(work) is the min freq that is admissible for "work", which we will
>> # abbreviate as "f"
>> f(work) = work * f_max
>>
>> # from struct em_cap_state doc in energy_model.h
>> cost(f) = power(f) * f_max / f
>> cost(f) = power(f) / util
>> cost(f) = power(f) / work
>> power(f) = cost(f) * work
>>
>> boosted_cost(f) = cost(f) + x
> 
> In em_pd_get_higher_freq, the boost is a % of cost(f)  so it should be
> boosted_cost(f)=cost(f)1+ cost(f)*x

Good point, this means that we need to change "x" in these equations:
x = cost(f) * margin

Which leads to:
lost_battery_percent(work) =
(100 * T / cost(f_max) / total_battery_energy) * cost'(work) * margin * work

lost_battery_percent(work) is still proportional to something that can
easily be traced and averaged (cost'(work,t) * margin(work,t)). At the
end of the day, since the impact depends on whether the workload will
make the condition to trigger, tracing is necessary to see how it
performs.

Other than that, I agree that the thing becomes simpler if
em_pd_get_higher_freq() takes an absolute margin (as a per-1024 of max
cost) rather than something proportional to cost(f). I'll make the
change for v4.

>> boosted_power(f) = boosted_cost(f) * work
>> boosted_power(f) = (cost(f) + x) * work
>>
>> # Let's normalize cost() so we can forget about f and deal only with work.
>> cost'(work) = cost(f)/cost(f_max)
>> x' = x/cost(f_max)
>> boosted_power'(work) = (cost'(work) + x') * work
>> boosted_power'(work) = cost'(work) * work + x' * work
>> boosted_power'(work) = power'(work) + x' * work
>> boosted_power'(work) = power'(work) + A(work)
>>
>> # Over a duration T, spend an extra B unit of energy
>> B(work) = A(work) * T
>> lost_battery_percent(work) = 100 * B(work)/total_battery_energy
>> lost_battery_percent(work) = 100 * T * x' * work /total_battery_energy
>> lost_battery_percent(work) =
>>    (100 * T / cost(f_max) / total_battery_energy) * x * work
>>
>> This means that the effect of boosting on battery life is proportional
>> to "x" unless I made a mistake somewhere.
>>
>>>
>>> Or rather, the only actual limit is in relation to the max OPP. So you
>>> have very little actual control over how much more energy you're
>>> spending.
>>>
>>>>> So while I agree that 2) is a reasonable signal to work from, everything
>>>>> that comes after is still much confusing me.
>>>
>>>> "When applying these boosting rules on the runqueue util signals ...":
>>>> Assuming the set of enqueued tasks stays the same between 2 observations
>>>> from schedutil, if we see the rq util_avg increase above its
>>>> util_est.enqueued, that means that at least one task had its util_avg go
>>>> above util_est.enqueued. We might miss some boosting opportunities if some
>>>> (util - util_est) compensates:
>>>> TASK_1(util - util_est) = - TASK_2(util - util_est)
>>>> but working on the aggregated value is much easier in schedutil, to avoid
>>>> crawling the list of entities.
>>>
>>> That still does not explain why 'util - util_est', when >0, makes for a
>>> sensible input into an OPP relative function > I agree that 'util - util_est', when >0, indicates utilization is
>>> increasing (for the aperiodic blah blah blah). But after that I'm still
>>> confused.
>>
>> For the same reason PELT makes a sensible input for OPP selection.
>> Currently, OPP selection is based on max(util_avg, util_est.enqueued)
>> (from cpu_util_cfs in sched.h), so as soon as we have
>> (util - util_est > 0), the OPP will be selected according to util_avg.
>> In a way, using util_avg there is already some kind of boosting.
>>
>> Since the boosting is essentially (util - constant), it grows the same
>> way as util. If we think of (util - util_est) as being some estimation
>> of how wrong we were in the estimation of the task "true" utilization of
>> the CPU, then it makes sense to feed that to the boost. The wronger we
>> were, the more we want to boost, because the more time passes, the more
>> the scheduler realizes it actually does not know what the task needs. In
>> doubt, provide a higher freq than usual until we get to know this task
>> better. When that happens (at the next period), boosting is disabled and
>> we revert to the usual behavior (aka margin=0).
>>
>> Hope we are converging to some wording that makes sense.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists