* [PATCH] cpuidle: improve governor Kconfig options @ 2013-05-27 21:00 Daniel Lezcano 2013-05-28 11:46 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Daniel Lezcano @ 2013-05-27 21:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: rjw; +Cc: linux-pm, patches, linaro-kernel Each governor is suitable for different kernel configurations: the menu governor suits better for a tickless system, while the ladder governor fits better for a periodic timer tick system. The Kconfig does not allow to [un]select a governor, thus both are compiled in the kernel but the init order makes the menu governor to be the last one to be registered, so becoming the default. The only way to switch back to the ladder governor is to enable the sysfs governor switch in the kernel command line. Because it seems nobody complained about this, the menu governor is used by default most of the time on the system, having both governors is not really necessary on a tickless system but there isn't a config option to disable one or another governor. Create a submenu for cpuidle and add a label for each governor, so we can see the option in the menu config and enable/disable it. The governors will be enabled depending on the CONFIG_NO_HZ option: - If CONFIG_NO_HZ is set, then the menu governor is selected and the ladder governor is optional, defaulting to 'no' - If CONFIG_NO_HZ is not set, then the ladder governor is selected and the menu governor is optional, defaulting to 'no' Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> --- drivers/cpuidle/Kconfig | 20 +++++++++----------- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/cpuidle/Kconfig b/drivers/cpuidle/Kconfig index c4cc27e..90c2f39 100644 --- a/drivers/cpuidle/Kconfig +++ b/drivers/cpuidle/Kconfig @@ -1,7 +1,9 @@ -config CPU_IDLE +menuconfig CPU_IDLE bool "CPU idle PM support" default y if ACPI || PPC_PSERIES + select CPU_IDLE_GOV_LADDER if (!NO_HZ && !NO_HZ_IDLE) + select CPU_IDLE_GOV_MENU if (NO_HZ || NO_HZ_IDLE) help CPU idle is a generic framework for supporting software-controlled idle processor power management. It includes modular cross-platform @@ -9,9 +11,10 @@ config CPU_IDLE If you're using an ACPI-enabled platform, you should say Y here. +if CPU_IDLE + config CPU_IDLE_MULTIPLE_DRIVERS bool "Support multiple cpuidle drivers" - depends on CPU_IDLE default n help Allows the cpuidle framework to use different drivers for each CPU. @@ -19,24 +22,19 @@ config CPU_IDLE_MULTIPLE_DRIVERS states. If unsure say N. config CPU_IDLE_GOV_LADDER - bool - depends on CPU_IDLE - default y + bool "Ladder governor (for periodic timer tick)" + default n if (NO_HZ || NO_HZ_IDLE) config CPU_IDLE_GOV_MENU - bool - depends on CPU_IDLE && NO_HZ - default y + bool "Menu governor (for tickless system)" + default n if (!NO_HZ && !NO_HZ_IDLE) config ARCH_NEEDS_CPU_IDLE_COUPLED def_bool n -if CPU_IDLE - config CPU_IDLE_CALXEDA bool "CPU Idle Driver for Calxeda processors" depends on ARCH_HIGHBANK help Select this to enable cpuidle on Calxeda processors. - endif -- 1.7.9.5 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] cpuidle: improve governor Kconfig options 2013-05-27 21:00 [PATCH] cpuidle: improve governor Kconfig options Daniel Lezcano @ 2013-05-28 11:46 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2013-05-28 12:23 ` Daniel Lezcano 0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Rafael J. Wysocki @ 2013-05-28 11:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Daniel Lezcano; +Cc: linux-pm, patches, linaro-kernel On Monday, May 27, 2013 11:00:58 PM Daniel Lezcano wrote: > Each governor is suitable for different kernel configurations: the menu > governor suits better for a tickless system, while the ladder governor fits > better for a periodic timer tick system. > > The Kconfig does not allow to [un]select a governor, thus both are compiled in > the kernel but the init order makes the menu governor to be the last one to be > registered, so becoming the default. The only way to switch back to the ladder > governor is to enable the sysfs governor switch in the kernel command line. > > Because it seems nobody complained about this, the menu governor is used by > default most of the time on the system, having both governors is not really > necessary on a tickless system but there isn't a config option to disable one > or another governor. > > Create a submenu for cpuidle and add a label for each governor, so we can see > the option in the menu config and enable/disable it. > > The governors will be enabled depending on the CONFIG_NO_HZ option: > - If CONFIG_NO_HZ is set, then the menu governor is selected and the ladder > governor is optional, defaulting to 'no' Why not defaulting to 'yes'? That'd be backwards compatible, wouldn't it? > - If CONFIG_NO_HZ is not set, then the ladder governor is selected and the > menu governor is optional, defaulting to 'no' Are you sure this is not going to introduce regressions with CONFIG_NO_HZ unset? Rafael > Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> > --- > drivers/cpuidle/Kconfig | 20 +++++++++----------- > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/cpuidle/Kconfig b/drivers/cpuidle/Kconfig > index c4cc27e..90c2f39 100644 > --- a/drivers/cpuidle/Kconfig > +++ b/drivers/cpuidle/Kconfig > @@ -1,7 +1,9 @@ > > -config CPU_IDLE > +menuconfig CPU_IDLE > bool "CPU idle PM support" > default y if ACPI || PPC_PSERIES > + select CPU_IDLE_GOV_LADDER if (!NO_HZ && !NO_HZ_IDLE) > + select CPU_IDLE_GOV_MENU if (NO_HZ || NO_HZ_IDLE) > help > CPU idle is a generic framework for supporting software-controlled > idle processor power management. It includes modular cross-platform > @@ -9,9 +11,10 @@ config CPU_IDLE > > If you're using an ACPI-enabled platform, you should say Y here. > > +if CPU_IDLE > + > config CPU_IDLE_MULTIPLE_DRIVERS > bool "Support multiple cpuidle drivers" > - depends on CPU_IDLE > default n > help > Allows the cpuidle framework to use different drivers for each CPU. > @@ -19,24 +22,19 @@ config CPU_IDLE_MULTIPLE_DRIVERS > states. If unsure say N. > > config CPU_IDLE_GOV_LADDER > - bool > - depends on CPU_IDLE > - default y > + bool "Ladder governor (for periodic timer tick)" > + default n if (NO_HZ || NO_HZ_IDLE) > > config CPU_IDLE_GOV_MENU > - bool > - depends on CPU_IDLE && NO_HZ > - default y > + bool "Menu governor (for tickless system)" > + default n if (!NO_HZ && !NO_HZ_IDLE) > > config ARCH_NEEDS_CPU_IDLE_COUPLED > def_bool n > > -if CPU_IDLE > - > config CPU_IDLE_CALXEDA > bool "CPU Idle Driver for Calxeda processors" > depends on ARCH_HIGHBANK > help > Select this to enable cpuidle on Calxeda processors. > - > endif > -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] cpuidle: improve governor Kconfig options 2013-05-28 11:46 ` Rafael J. Wysocki @ 2013-05-28 12:23 ` Daniel Lezcano 0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Daniel Lezcano @ 2013-05-28 12:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Rafael J. Wysocki Cc: linux-pm, patches, linaro-kernel, linux-arm-kernel, Thomas Gleixner On 05/28/2013 01:46 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Monday, May 27, 2013 11:00:58 PM Daniel Lezcano wrote: >> Each governor is suitable for different kernel configurations: the menu >> governor suits better for a tickless system, while the ladder governor fits >> better for a periodic timer tick system. >> >> The Kconfig does not allow to [un]select a governor, thus both are compiled in >> the kernel but the init order makes the menu governor to be the last one to be >> registered, so becoming the default. The only way to switch back to the ladder >> governor is to enable the sysfs governor switch in the kernel command line. >> >> Because it seems nobody complained about this, the menu governor is used by >> default most of the time on the system, having both governors is not really >> necessary on a tickless system but there isn't a config option to disable one >> or another governor. >> >> Create a submenu for cpuidle and add a label for each governor, so we can see >> the option in the menu config and enable/disable it. >> >> The governors will be enabled depending on the CONFIG_NO_HZ option: >> - If CONFIG_NO_HZ is set, then the menu governor is selected and the ladder >> governor is optional, defaulting to 'no' > > Why not defaulting to 'yes'? That'd be backwards compatible, wouldn't it? Yes, that wouldn't be backward compatible but who wants the ladder governor which is less efficient with a tickless system ? >> - If CONFIG_NO_HZ is not set, then the ladder governor is selected and the >> menu governor is optional, defaulting to 'no' > > Are you sure this is not going to introduce regressions with CONFIG_NO_HZ > unset? Yes, a system configured with a periodic tick will use the ladder instead of the menu governor (which is less efficient on this configuration). Currently the default is the menu governor with a periodic tick system because both governors are compiled in and the init order makes the menu governor to be enabled instead of the 'ladder'. We can set both to 'yes' by default but in this case, I suggest to add in the code a 'preferred' governor depending on tickless or not, so the right governor is chosen at boot time depending on CONFIG_NO_HZ. Otherwise, I am not sure people running servers (with a periodic tick) will change their kernel command line option to enable the sysfs governor switch to change the governor to ladder, neither they are aware ladder is better for their system. I am open to any suggestion. Thanks -- Daniel -- <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook | <http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter | <http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] cpuidle: improve governor Kconfig options @ 2013-05-28 12:23 ` Daniel Lezcano 0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Daniel Lezcano @ 2013-05-28 12:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel On 05/28/2013 01:46 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Monday, May 27, 2013 11:00:58 PM Daniel Lezcano wrote: >> Each governor is suitable for different kernel configurations: the menu >> governor suits better for a tickless system, while the ladder governor fits >> better for a periodic timer tick system. >> >> The Kconfig does not allow to [un]select a governor, thus both are compiled in >> the kernel but the init order makes the menu governor to be the last one to be >> registered, so becoming the default. The only way to switch back to the ladder >> governor is to enable the sysfs governor switch in the kernel command line. >> >> Because it seems nobody complained about this, the menu governor is used by >> default most of the time on the system, having both governors is not really >> necessary on a tickless system but there isn't a config option to disable one >> or another governor. >> >> Create a submenu for cpuidle and add a label for each governor, so we can see >> the option in the menu config and enable/disable it. >> >> The governors will be enabled depending on the CONFIG_NO_HZ option: >> - If CONFIG_NO_HZ is set, then the menu governor is selected and the ladder >> governor is optional, defaulting to 'no' > > Why not defaulting to 'yes'? That'd be backwards compatible, wouldn't it? Yes, that wouldn't be backward compatible but who wants the ladder governor which is less efficient with a tickless system ? >> - If CONFIG_NO_HZ is not set, then the ladder governor is selected and the >> menu governor is optional, defaulting to 'no' > > Are you sure this is not going to introduce regressions with CONFIG_NO_HZ > unset? Yes, a system configured with a periodic tick will use the ladder instead of the menu governor (which is less efficient on this configuration). Currently the default is the menu governor with a periodic tick system because both governors are compiled in and the init order makes the menu governor to be enabled instead of the 'ladder'. We can set both to 'yes' by default but in this case, I suggest to add in the code a 'preferred' governor depending on tickless or not, so the right governor is chosen at boot time depending on CONFIG_NO_HZ. Otherwise, I am not sure people running servers (with a periodic tick) will change their kernel command line option to enable the sysfs governor switch to change the governor to ladder, neither they are aware ladder is better for their system. I am open to any suggestion. Thanks -- Daniel -- <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org ? Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook | <http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter | <http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] cpuidle: improve governor Kconfig options 2013-05-28 12:23 ` Daniel Lezcano @ 2013-05-28 12:42 ` Rafael J. Wysocki -1 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Rafael J. Wysocki @ 2013-05-28 12:42 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Daniel Lezcano Cc: linux-pm, patches, linaro-kernel, linux-arm-kernel, Thomas Gleixner On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 02:23:00 PM Daniel Lezcano wrote: > On 05/28/2013 01:46 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Monday, May 27, 2013 11:00:58 PM Daniel Lezcano wrote: > >> Each governor is suitable for different kernel configurations: the menu > >> governor suits better for a tickless system, while the ladder governor fits > >> better for a periodic timer tick system. > >> > >> The Kconfig does not allow to [un]select a governor, thus both are compiled in > >> the kernel but the init order makes the menu governor to be the last one to be > >> registered, so becoming the default. The only way to switch back to the ladder > >> governor is to enable the sysfs governor switch in the kernel command line. > >> > >> Because it seems nobody complained about this, the menu governor is used by > >> default most of the time on the system, having both governors is not really > >> necessary on a tickless system but there isn't a config option to disable one > >> or another governor. > >> > >> Create a submenu for cpuidle and add a label for each governor, so we can see > >> the option in the menu config and enable/disable it. > >> > >> The governors will be enabled depending on the CONFIG_NO_HZ option: > >> - If CONFIG_NO_HZ is set, then the menu governor is selected and the ladder > >> governor is optional, defaulting to 'no' > > > > Why not defaulting to 'yes'? That'd be backwards compatible, wouldn't it? > > Yes, that wouldn't be backward compatible but who wants the ladder > governor which is less efficient with a tickless system ? I don't know and this isn't the right question to ask I think. You need to ask who uses the ladder governor with CONFIG_NO_HZ and you need to avoid making changes that aren't backwards compatible if you don't know the answer (which I'm pretty sure is the case). I'd prefer to default to 'yes' to start with and then to change the default to 'no' after a couple of cycles, possibly. > >> - If CONFIG_NO_HZ is not set, then the ladder governor is selected and the > >> menu governor is optional, defaulting to 'no' > > > > Are you sure this is not going to introduce regressions with CONFIG_NO_HZ > > unset? > > Yes, a system configured with a periodic tick will use the ladder > instead of the menu governor (which is less efficient on this > configuration). Well, "less efficient" meaning what exactly? Less power-efficient or less efficient performance-wise? > Currently the default is the menu governor with a periodic tick system > because both governors are compiled in and the init order makes the menu > governor to be enabled instead of the 'ladder'. I understand that. > We can set both to 'yes' by default but in this case, I suggest to add > in the code a 'preferred' governor depending on tickless or not, so the > right governor is chosen at boot time depending on CONFIG_NO_HZ. > > Otherwise, I am not sure people running servers (with a periodic tick) > will change their kernel command line option to enable the sysfs > governor switch to change the governor to ladder, neither they are aware > ladder is better for their system. > > I am open to any suggestion. I think the change to make the governor preference depend on CONFIG_NO_HZ kind of makes sense. However, I'd default to 'yes' for both governors in both configurations to start with (which basically means that the ordering will now depend on CONFIG_NO_HZ). Thanks, Rafael -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] cpuidle: improve governor Kconfig options @ 2013-05-28 12:42 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Rafael J. Wysocki @ 2013-05-28 12:42 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 02:23:00 PM Daniel Lezcano wrote: > On 05/28/2013 01:46 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Monday, May 27, 2013 11:00:58 PM Daniel Lezcano wrote: > >> Each governor is suitable for different kernel configurations: the menu > >> governor suits better for a tickless system, while the ladder governor fits > >> better for a periodic timer tick system. > >> > >> The Kconfig does not allow to [un]select a governor, thus both are compiled in > >> the kernel but the init order makes the menu governor to be the last one to be > >> registered, so becoming the default. The only way to switch back to the ladder > >> governor is to enable the sysfs governor switch in the kernel command line. > >> > >> Because it seems nobody complained about this, the menu governor is used by > >> default most of the time on the system, having both governors is not really > >> necessary on a tickless system but there isn't a config option to disable one > >> or another governor. > >> > >> Create a submenu for cpuidle and add a label for each governor, so we can see > >> the option in the menu config and enable/disable it. > >> > >> The governors will be enabled depending on the CONFIG_NO_HZ option: > >> - If CONFIG_NO_HZ is set, then the menu governor is selected and the ladder > >> governor is optional, defaulting to 'no' > > > > Why not defaulting to 'yes'? That'd be backwards compatible, wouldn't it? > > Yes, that wouldn't be backward compatible but who wants the ladder > governor which is less efficient with a tickless system ? I don't know and this isn't the right question to ask I think. You need to ask who uses the ladder governor with CONFIG_NO_HZ and you need to avoid making changes that aren't backwards compatible if you don't know the answer (which I'm pretty sure is the case). I'd prefer to default to 'yes' to start with and then to change the default to 'no' after a couple of cycles, possibly. > >> - If CONFIG_NO_HZ is not set, then the ladder governor is selected and the > >> menu governor is optional, defaulting to 'no' > > > > Are you sure this is not going to introduce regressions with CONFIG_NO_HZ > > unset? > > Yes, a system configured with a periodic tick will use the ladder > instead of the menu governor (which is less efficient on this > configuration). Well, "less efficient" meaning what exactly? Less power-efficient or less efficient performance-wise? > Currently the default is the menu governor with a periodic tick system > because both governors are compiled in and the init order makes the menu > governor to be enabled instead of the 'ladder'. I understand that. > We can set both to 'yes' by default but in this case, I suggest to add > in the code a 'preferred' governor depending on tickless or not, so the > right governor is chosen at boot time depending on CONFIG_NO_HZ. > > Otherwise, I am not sure people running servers (with a periodic tick) > will change their kernel command line option to enable the sysfs > governor switch to change the governor to ladder, neither they are aware > ladder is better for their system. > > I am open to any suggestion. I think the change to make the governor preference depend on CONFIG_NO_HZ kind of makes sense. However, I'd default to 'yes' for both governors in both configurations to start with (which basically means that the ordering will now depend on CONFIG_NO_HZ). Thanks, Rafael -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] cpuidle: improve governor Kconfig options 2013-05-28 12:42 ` Rafael J. Wysocki @ 2013-05-28 13:23 ` Daniel Lezcano -1 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Daniel Lezcano @ 2013-05-28 13:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Rafael J. Wysocki Cc: linux-pm, patches, linaro-kernel, linux-arm-kernel, Thomas Gleixner On 05/28/2013 02:42 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 02:23:00 PM Daniel Lezcano wrote: >> On 05/28/2013 01:46 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>> On Monday, May 27, 2013 11:00:58 PM Daniel Lezcano wrote: >>>> Each governor is suitable for different kernel configurations: the menu >>>> governor suits better for a tickless system, while the ladder governor fits >>>> better for a periodic timer tick system. >>>> >>>> The Kconfig does not allow to [un]select a governor, thus both are compiled in >>>> the kernel but the init order makes the menu governor to be the last one to be >>>> registered, so becoming the default. The only way to switch back to the ladder >>>> governor is to enable the sysfs governor switch in the kernel command line. >>>> >>>> Because it seems nobody complained about this, the menu governor is used by >>>> default most of the time on the system, having both governors is not really >>>> necessary on a tickless system but there isn't a config option to disable one >>>> or another governor. >>>> >>>> Create a submenu for cpuidle and add a label for each governor, so we can see >>>> the option in the menu config and enable/disable it. >>>> >>>> The governors will be enabled depending on the CONFIG_NO_HZ option: >>>> - If CONFIG_NO_HZ is set, then the menu governor is selected and the ladder >>>> governor is optional, defaulting to 'no' >>> >>> Why not defaulting to 'yes'? That'd be backwards compatible, wouldn't it? >> >> Yes, that wouldn't be backward compatible but who wants the ladder >> governor which is less efficient with a tickless system ? > > I don't know and this isn't the right question to ask I think. > > You need to ask who uses the ladder governor with CONFIG_NO_HZ and you need to > avoid making changes that aren't backwards compatible if you don't know the > answer (which I'm pretty sure is the case). > > I'd prefer to default to 'yes' to start with and then to change the > default to 'no' after a couple of cycles, possibly. > >>>> - If CONFIG_NO_HZ is not set, then the ladder governor is selected and the >>>> menu governor is optional, defaulting to 'no' >>> >>> Are you sure this is not going to introduce regressions with CONFIG_NO_HZ >>> unset? >> >> Yes, a system configured with a periodic tick will use the ladder >> instead of the menu governor (which is less efficient on this >> configuration). > > Well, "less efficient" meaning what exactly? Less power-efficient or less > efficient performance-wise? less power efficient. >> Currently the default is the menu governor with a periodic tick system >> because both governors are compiled in and the init order makes the menu >> governor to be enabled instead of the 'ladder'. > > I understand that. > >> We can set both to 'yes' by default but in this case, I suggest to add >> in the code a 'preferred' governor depending on tickless or not, so the >> right governor is chosen at boot time depending on CONFIG_NO_HZ. >> >> Otherwise, I am not sure people running servers (with a periodic tick) >> will change their kernel command line option to enable the sysfs >> governor switch to change the governor to ladder, neither they are aware >> ladder is better for their system. >> >> I am open to any suggestion. > > I think the change to make the governor preference depend on CONFIG_NO_HZ > kind of makes sense. However, I'd default to 'yes' for both governors in both > configurations to start with (which basically means that the ordering will now > depend on CONFIG_NO_HZ). Ok, no problem. I will respin the patch. Thanks for the review -- Daniel -- <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook | <http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter | <http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] cpuidle: improve governor Kconfig options @ 2013-05-28 13:23 ` Daniel Lezcano 0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Daniel Lezcano @ 2013-05-28 13:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel On 05/28/2013 02:42 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 02:23:00 PM Daniel Lezcano wrote: >> On 05/28/2013 01:46 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>> On Monday, May 27, 2013 11:00:58 PM Daniel Lezcano wrote: >>>> Each governor is suitable for different kernel configurations: the menu >>>> governor suits better for a tickless system, while the ladder governor fits >>>> better for a periodic timer tick system. >>>> >>>> The Kconfig does not allow to [un]select a governor, thus both are compiled in >>>> the kernel but the init order makes the menu governor to be the last one to be >>>> registered, so becoming the default. The only way to switch back to the ladder >>>> governor is to enable the sysfs governor switch in the kernel command line. >>>> >>>> Because it seems nobody complained about this, the menu governor is used by >>>> default most of the time on the system, having both governors is not really >>>> necessary on a tickless system but there isn't a config option to disable one >>>> or another governor. >>>> >>>> Create a submenu for cpuidle and add a label for each governor, so we can see >>>> the option in the menu config and enable/disable it. >>>> >>>> The governors will be enabled depending on the CONFIG_NO_HZ option: >>>> - If CONFIG_NO_HZ is set, then the menu governor is selected and the ladder >>>> governor is optional, defaulting to 'no' >>> >>> Why not defaulting to 'yes'? That'd be backwards compatible, wouldn't it? >> >> Yes, that wouldn't be backward compatible but who wants the ladder >> governor which is less efficient with a tickless system ? > > I don't know and this isn't the right question to ask I think. > > You need to ask who uses the ladder governor with CONFIG_NO_HZ and you need to > avoid making changes that aren't backwards compatible if you don't know the > answer (which I'm pretty sure is the case). > > I'd prefer to default to 'yes' to start with and then to change the > default to 'no' after a couple of cycles, possibly. > >>>> - If CONFIG_NO_HZ is not set, then the ladder governor is selected and the >>>> menu governor is optional, defaulting to 'no' >>> >>> Are you sure this is not going to introduce regressions with CONFIG_NO_HZ >>> unset? >> >> Yes, a system configured with a periodic tick will use the ladder >> instead of the menu governor (which is less efficient on this >> configuration). > > Well, "less efficient" meaning what exactly? Less power-efficient or less > efficient performance-wise? less power efficient. >> Currently the default is the menu governor with a periodic tick system >> because both governors are compiled in and the init order makes the menu >> governor to be enabled instead of the 'ladder'. > > I understand that. > >> We can set both to 'yes' by default but in this case, I suggest to add >> in the code a 'preferred' governor depending on tickless or not, so the >> right governor is chosen at boot time depending on CONFIG_NO_HZ. >> >> Otherwise, I am not sure people running servers (with a periodic tick) >> will change their kernel command line option to enable the sysfs >> governor switch to change the governor to ladder, neither they are aware >> ladder is better for their system. >> >> I am open to any suggestion. > > I think the change to make the governor preference depend on CONFIG_NO_HZ > kind of makes sense. However, I'd default to 'yes' for both governors in both > configurations to start with (which basically means that the ordering will now > depend on CONFIG_NO_HZ). Ok, no problem. I will respin the patch. Thanks for the review -- Daniel -- <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org ? Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook | <http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter | <http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] cpuidle: improve governor Kconfig options 2013-05-28 13:23 ` Daniel Lezcano @ 2013-05-28 21:26 ` Rafael J. Wysocki -1 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Rafael J. Wysocki @ 2013-05-28 21:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Daniel Lezcano Cc: linux-pm, patches, linaro-kernel, linux-arm-kernel, Thomas Gleixner On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 03:23:37 PM Daniel Lezcano wrote: > On 05/28/2013 02:42 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 02:23:00 PM Daniel Lezcano wrote: > >> On 05/28/2013 01:46 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >>> On Monday, May 27, 2013 11:00:58 PM Daniel Lezcano wrote: > >>>> Each governor is suitable for different kernel configurations: the menu > >>>> governor suits better for a tickless system, while the ladder governor fits > >>>> better for a periodic timer tick system. > >>>> > >>>> The Kconfig does not allow to [un]select a governor, thus both are compiled in > >>>> the kernel but the init order makes the menu governor to be the last one to be > >>>> registered, so becoming the default. The only way to switch back to the ladder > >>>> governor is to enable the sysfs governor switch in the kernel command line. > >>>> > >>>> Because it seems nobody complained about this, the menu governor is used by > >>>> default most of the time on the system, having both governors is not really > >>>> necessary on a tickless system but there isn't a config option to disable one > >>>> or another governor. > >>>> > >>>> Create a submenu for cpuidle and add a label for each governor, so we can see > >>>> the option in the menu config and enable/disable it. > >>>> > >>>> The governors will be enabled depending on the CONFIG_NO_HZ option: > >>>> - If CONFIG_NO_HZ is set, then the menu governor is selected and the ladder > >>>> governor is optional, defaulting to 'no' > >>> > >>> Why not defaulting to 'yes'? That'd be backwards compatible, wouldn't it? > >> > >> Yes, that wouldn't be backward compatible but who wants the ladder > >> governor which is less efficient with a tickless system ? > > > > I don't know and this isn't the right question to ask I think. > > > > You need to ask who uses the ladder governor with CONFIG_NO_HZ and you need to > > avoid making changes that aren't backwards compatible if you don't know the > > answer (which I'm pretty sure is the case). > > > > I'd prefer to default to 'yes' to start with and then to change the > > default to 'no' after a couple of cycles, possibly. > > > >>>> - If CONFIG_NO_HZ is not set, then the ladder governor is selected and the > >>>> menu governor is optional, defaulting to 'no' > >>> > >>> Are you sure this is not going to introduce regressions with CONFIG_NO_HZ > >>> unset? > >> > >> Yes, a system configured with a periodic tick will use the ladder > >> instead of the menu governor (which is less efficient on this > >> configuration). > > > > Well, "less efficient" meaning what exactly? Less power-efficient or less > > efficient performance-wise? > > less power efficient. I thought so, but that's really important, because some people *do* care about performance. In the context of changes like this one we always need to talk about both power and performance. For example, when you're saying that changing something may lead to better energy saving behavior, you should also say what the impact of that change on performance is going to be. Thanks, Rafael -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] cpuidle: improve governor Kconfig options @ 2013-05-28 21:26 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Rafael J. Wysocki @ 2013-05-28 21:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 03:23:37 PM Daniel Lezcano wrote: > On 05/28/2013 02:42 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 02:23:00 PM Daniel Lezcano wrote: > >> On 05/28/2013 01:46 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >>> On Monday, May 27, 2013 11:00:58 PM Daniel Lezcano wrote: > >>>> Each governor is suitable for different kernel configurations: the menu > >>>> governor suits better for a tickless system, while the ladder governor fits > >>>> better for a periodic timer tick system. > >>>> > >>>> The Kconfig does not allow to [un]select a governor, thus both are compiled in > >>>> the kernel but the init order makes the menu governor to be the last one to be > >>>> registered, so becoming the default. The only way to switch back to the ladder > >>>> governor is to enable the sysfs governor switch in the kernel command line. > >>>> > >>>> Because it seems nobody complained about this, the menu governor is used by > >>>> default most of the time on the system, having both governors is not really > >>>> necessary on a tickless system but there isn't a config option to disable one > >>>> or another governor. > >>>> > >>>> Create a submenu for cpuidle and add a label for each governor, so we can see > >>>> the option in the menu config and enable/disable it. > >>>> > >>>> The governors will be enabled depending on the CONFIG_NO_HZ option: > >>>> - If CONFIG_NO_HZ is set, then the menu governor is selected and the ladder > >>>> governor is optional, defaulting to 'no' > >>> > >>> Why not defaulting to 'yes'? That'd be backwards compatible, wouldn't it? > >> > >> Yes, that wouldn't be backward compatible but who wants the ladder > >> governor which is less efficient with a tickless system ? > > > > I don't know and this isn't the right question to ask I think. > > > > You need to ask who uses the ladder governor with CONFIG_NO_HZ and you need to > > avoid making changes that aren't backwards compatible if you don't know the > > answer (which I'm pretty sure is the case). > > > > I'd prefer to default to 'yes' to start with and then to change the > > default to 'no' after a couple of cycles, possibly. > > > >>>> - If CONFIG_NO_HZ is not set, then the ladder governor is selected and the > >>>> menu governor is optional, defaulting to 'no' > >>> > >>> Are you sure this is not going to introduce regressions with CONFIG_NO_HZ > >>> unset? > >> > >> Yes, a system configured with a periodic tick will use the ladder > >> instead of the menu governor (which is less efficient on this > >> configuration). > > > > Well, "less efficient" meaning what exactly? Less power-efficient or less > > efficient performance-wise? > > less power efficient. I thought so, but that's really important, because some people *do* care about performance. In the context of changes like this one we always need to talk about both power and performance. For example, when you're saying that changing something may lead to better energy saving behavior, you should also say what the impact of that change on performance is going to be. Thanks, Rafael -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] cpuidle: improve governor Kconfig options 2013-05-28 21:26 ` Rafael J. Wysocki @ 2013-05-28 21:39 ` Daniel Lezcano -1 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Daniel Lezcano @ 2013-05-28 21:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Rafael J. Wysocki Cc: linux-pm, patches, linaro-kernel, linux-arm-kernel, Thomas Gleixner On 05/28/2013 11:26 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 03:23:37 PM Daniel Lezcano wrote: >> On 05/28/2013 02:42 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>> On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 02:23:00 PM Daniel Lezcano wrote: >>>> On 05/28/2013 01:46 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>>>> On Monday, May 27, 2013 11:00:58 PM Daniel Lezcano wrote: >>>>>> Each governor is suitable for different kernel configurations: the menu >>>>>> governor suits better for a tickless system, while the ladder governor fits >>>>>> better for a periodic timer tick system. >>>>>> >>>>>> The Kconfig does not allow to [un]select a governor, thus both are compiled in >>>>>> the kernel but the init order makes the menu governor to be the last one to be >>>>>> registered, so becoming the default. The only way to switch back to the ladder >>>>>> governor is to enable the sysfs governor switch in the kernel command line. >>>>>> >>>>>> Because it seems nobody complained about this, the menu governor is used by >>>>>> default most of the time on the system, having both governors is not really >>>>>> necessary on a tickless system but there isn't a config option to disable one >>>>>> or another governor. >>>>>> >>>>>> Create a submenu for cpuidle and add a label for each governor, so we can see >>>>>> the option in the menu config and enable/disable it. >>>>>> >>>>>> The governors will be enabled depending on the CONFIG_NO_HZ option: >>>>>> - If CONFIG_NO_HZ is set, then the menu governor is selected and the ladder >>>>>> governor is optional, defaulting to 'no' >>>>> >>>>> Why not defaulting to 'yes'? That'd be backwards compatible, wouldn't it? >>>> >>>> Yes, that wouldn't be backward compatible but who wants the ladder >>>> governor which is less efficient with a tickless system ? >>> >>> I don't know and this isn't the right question to ask I think. >>> >>> You need to ask who uses the ladder governor with CONFIG_NO_HZ and you need to >>> avoid making changes that aren't backwards compatible if you don't know the >>> answer (which I'm pretty sure is the case). >>> >>> I'd prefer to default to 'yes' to start with and then to change the >>> default to 'no' after a couple of cycles, possibly. >>> >>>>>> - If CONFIG_NO_HZ is not set, then the ladder governor is selected and the >>>>>> menu governor is optional, defaulting to 'no' >>>>> >>>>> Are you sure this is not going to introduce regressions with CONFIG_NO_HZ >>>>> unset? >>>> >>>> Yes, a system configured with a periodic tick will use the ladder >>>> instead of the menu governor (which is less efficient on this >>>> configuration). >>> >>> Well, "less efficient" meaning what exactly? Less power-efficient or less >>> efficient performance-wise? >> >> less power efficient. > > I thought so, but that's really important, because some people *do* care about > performance. In the context of changes like this one we always need to talk > about both power and performance. For example, when you're saying that > changing something may lead to better energy saving behavior, you should also > say what the impact of that change on performance is going to be I fully agree with you but with this very specific case, when the cpuidle is enabled in the system, it is to have the best trade-off between performance and power saving. Using the ladder governor on a tickless system is not power efficient and the performance is not significantly improved. If the governor is too agressive in power saving and impacts the performance the pm_qos will guarantee the needed performance. Desktop will use tickless system because they want power saving, thus cpuidle and the menu governor is the best trade-off. Server will want more responsiveness and will use a periodic timer tick system, the cpuidle and the ladder suits better. The pm_qos will ensure a latency for both governors. But again I agree 100% with you and keeping the old behavior makes sense until we sort this out clearly in the next cycles. Thanks -- Daniel -- <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook | <http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter | <http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] cpuidle: improve governor Kconfig options @ 2013-05-28 21:39 ` Daniel Lezcano 0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Daniel Lezcano @ 2013-05-28 21:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel On 05/28/2013 11:26 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 03:23:37 PM Daniel Lezcano wrote: >> On 05/28/2013 02:42 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>> On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 02:23:00 PM Daniel Lezcano wrote: >>>> On 05/28/2013 01:46 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>>>> On Monday, May 27, 2013 11:00:58 PM Daniel Lezcano wrote: >>>>>> Each governor is suitable for different kernel configurations: the menu >>>>>> governor suits better for a tickless system, while the ladder governor fits >>>>>> better for a periodic timer tick system. >>>>>> >>>>>> The Kconfig does not allow to [un]select a governor, thus both are compiled in >>>>>> the kernel but the init order makes the menu governor to be the last one to be >>>>>> registered, so becoming the default. The only way to switch back to the ladder >>>>>> governor is to enable the sysfs governor switch in the kernel command line. >>>>>> >>>>>> Because it seems nobody complained about this, the menu governor is used by >>>>>> default most of the time on the system, having both governors is not really >>>>>> necessary on a tickless system but there isn't a config option to disable one >>>>>> or another governor. >>>>>> >>>>>> Create a submenu for cpuidle and add a label for each governor, so we can see >>>>>> the option in the menu config and enable/disable it. >>>>>> >>>>>> The governors will be enabled depending on the CONFIG_NO_HZ option: >>>>>> - If CONFIG_NO_HZ is set, then the menu governor is selected and the ladder >>>>>> governor is optional, defaulting to 'no' >>>>> >>>>> Why not defaulting to 'yes'? That'd be backwards compatible, wouldn't it? >>>> >>>> Yes, that wouldn't be backward compatible but who wants the ladder >>>> governor which is less efficient with a tickless system ? >>> >>> I don't know and this isn't the right question to ask I think. >>> >>> You need to ask who uses the ladder governor with CONFIG_NO_HZ and you need to >>> avoid making changes that aren't backwards compatible if you don't know the >>> answer (which I'm pretty sure is the case). >>> >>> I'd prefer to default to 'yes' to start with and then to change the >>> default to 'no' after a couple of cycles, possibly. >>> >>>>>> - If CONFIG_NO_HZ is not set, then the ladder governor is selected and the >>>>>> menu governor is optional, defaulting to 'no' >>>>> >>>>> Are you sure this is not going to introduce regressions with CONFIG_NO_HZ >>>>> unset? >>>> >>>> Yes, a system configured with a periodic tick will use the ladder >>>> instead of the menu governor (which is less efficient on this >>>> configuration). >>> >>> Well, "less efficient" meaning what exactly? Less power-efficient or less >>> efficient performance-wise? >> >> less power efficient. > > I thought so, but that's really important, because some people *do* care about > performance. In the context of changes like this one we always need to talk > about both power and performance. For example, when you're saying that > changing something may lead to better energy saving behavior, you should also > say what the impact of that change on performance is going to be I fully agree with you but with this very specific case, when the cpuidle is enabled in the system, it is to have the best trade-off between performance and power saving. Using the ladder governor on a tickless system is not power efficient and the performance is not significantly improved. If the governor is too agressive in power saving and impacts the performance the pm_qos will guarantee the needed performance. Desktop will use tickless system because they want power saving, thus cpuidle and the menu governor is the best trade-off. Server will want more responsiveness and will use a periodic timer tick system, the cpuidle and the ladder suits better. The pm_qos will ensure a latency for both governors. But again I agree 100% with you and keeping the old behavior makes sense until we sort this out clearly in the next cycles. Thanks -- Daniel -- <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org ? Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook | <http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter | <http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2013-05-28 21:39 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 12+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2013-05-27 21:00 [PATCH] cpuidle: improve governor Kconfig options Daniel Lezcano 2013-05-28 11:46 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2013-05-28 12:23 ` Daniel Lezcano 2013-05-28 12:23 ` Daniel Lezcano 2013-05-28 12:42 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2013-05-28 12:42 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2013-05-28 13:23 ` Daniel Lezcano 2013-05-28 13:23 ` Daniel Lezcano 2013-05-28 21:26 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2013-05-28 21:26 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2013-05-28 21:39 ` Daniel Lezcano 2013-05-28 21:39 ` Daniel Lezcano
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.