linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/6] cpuidle: teo: Increase util-threshold

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: <20240616215056.g4rnb4o5o7gwpcez@airbuntu>
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2024 22:50:56 +0100
From: Qais Yousef <qyousef@...alina.io>
To: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
Cc: Christian Loehle <christian.loehle@....com>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rafael@...nel.org,
	vincent.guittot@...aro.org, peterz@...radead.org,
	daniel.lezcano@...aro.org, anna-maria@...utronix.de,
	kajetan.puchalski@....com, lukasz.luba@....com,
	dietmar.eggemann@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] cpuidle: teo: Increase util-threshold

On 06/10/24 11:57, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jun 2024 at 00:47, Qais Yousef <qyousef@...alina.io> wrote:
> >
> > On 06/06/24 10:00, Christian Loehle wrote:
> > > Increase the util-threshold by a lot as it was low enough for some
> > > minor load to always be active, especially on smaller CPUs.
> > >
> > > For small cap CPUs (Pixel6) the util threshold is as low as 1.
> > > For CPUs of capacity <64 it is 0. So ensure it is at a minimum, too.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 9ce0f7c4bc64 ("cpuidle: teo: Introduce util-awareness")
> > > Reported-by: Qais Yousef <qyousef@...alina.io>
> > > Reported-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
> > > Suggested-by: Kajetan Puchalski <kajetan.puchalski@....com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Christian Loehle <christian.loehle@....com>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/cpuidle/governors/teo.c | 11 +++++------
> > >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/cpuidle/governors/teo.c b/drivers/cpuidle/governors/teo.c
> > > index 7244f71c59c5..45f43e2ee02d 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/cpuidle/governors/teo.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/cpuidle/governors/teo.c
> > > @@ -146,13 +146,11 @@
> > >   * The number of bits to shift the CPU's capacity by in order to determine
> > >   * the utilized threshold.
> > >   *
> > > - * 6 was chosen based on testing as the number that achieved the best balance
> > > - * of power and performance on average.
> > > - *
> > >   * The resulting threshold is high enough to not be triggered by background
> > > - * noise and low enough to react quickly when activity starts to ramp up.
> > > + * noise.
> > >   */
> > > -#define UTIL_THRESHOLD_SHIFT 6
> > > +#define UTIL_THRESHOLD_SHIFT 2
> > > +#define UTIL_THRESHOLD_MIN 50
> > >
> > >  /*
> > >   * The PULSE value is added to metrics when they grow and the DECAY_SHIFT value
> > > @@ -671,7 +669,8 @@ static int teo_enable_device(struct cpuidle_driver *drv,
> > >       int i;
> > >
> > >       memset(cpu_data, 0, sizeof(*cpu_data));
> > > -     cpu_data->util_threshold = max_capacity >> UTIL_THRESHOLD_SHIFT;
> > > +     cpu_data->util_threshold = max(UTIL_THRESHOLD_MIN,
> > > +                             max_capacity >> UTIL_THRESHOLD_SHIFT);
> >
> > Thanks for trying to fix this. But I am afraid this is not a solution. There's
> > no magic number that can truly work here - we tried. As I tried to explain
> > before, a higher util value doesn't mean long idle time is unlikely. And
> > blocked load can cause problems where a decay can take too long.
> >
> > We are following up with the suggestions I have thrown back then and we'll
> > share results if anything actually works.
> >
> > For now, I think a revert is more appropriate. There was some perf benefit, but
> > the power regressions were bad and there's no threshold value that actually
> > works. The thresholding concept itself is incorrect and flawed - it seemed the
> > correct thing back then, yes. But in a hindsight now it doesn't work.
> >
> 
> For the record, I fully agree with the above. A revert seems to be the
> best option in my opinion too.
> 
> Besides for the above reasons; when using cpuidle-psci with PSCI OSI
> mode, the approach leads to disabling *all* of cluster's idle-states
> too, as those aren't even visible for the teo governor. I am sure,
> that was not the intent with commit 9ce0f7c4bc64.

+2