From: Abhishek <huntbag@linux.vnet.ibm.com> To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org> Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>, Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>, Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>, Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>, "Gautham R. Shenoy" <ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] cpuidle : auto-promotion for cpuidle states Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2019 01:34:29 +0530 [thread overview] Message-ID: <32cdf163-32b7-1011-16aa-8b40332832db@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <CAJZ5v0h+jyPQ=NofwV4ha6zBqk7E1gF1xE9CoBfKYfb3jBTbig@mail.gmail.com> 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@linux.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.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Abhishek <huntbag@linux.vnet.ibm.com> To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org> Cc: "Gautham R. Shenoy" <ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>, Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] cpuidle : auto-promotion for cpuidle states Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2019 01:34:29 +0530 [thread overview] Message-ID: <32cdf163-32b7-1011-16aa-8b40332832db@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <CAJZ5v0h+jyPQ=NofwV4ha6zBqk7E1gF1xE9CoBfKYfb3jBTbig@mail.gmail.com> 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@linux.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.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-04-14 20:04 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2019-04-05 9:16 [PATCH v2 0/2] Auto-promotion logic for cpuidle states Abhishek Goel 2019-04-05 9:16 ` Abhishek Goel 2019-04-05 9:16 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] cpuidle : auto-promotion " Abhishek Goel 2019-04-05 9:16 ` Abhishek Goel 2019-04-08 14:12 ` Daniel Axtens 2019-04-08 14:12 ` Daniel Axtens 2019-04-08 14:12 ` Daniel Axtens 2019-04-09 9:28 ` Abhishek 2019-04-09 9:28 ` Abhishek 2019-04-09 9:30 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2019-04-09 9:30 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2019-04-09 9:42 ` Abhishek 2019-04-09 9:42 ` Abhishek 2019-04-08 14:25 ` Daniel Axtens 2019-04-08 14:25 ` Daniel Axtens 2019-04-08 14:25 ` Daniel Axtens 2019-04-09 9:36 ` Abhishek 2019-04-09 9:36 ` Abhishek 2019-04-09 10:01 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2019-04-09 10:01 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2019-04-14 20:04 ` Abhishek [this message] 2019-04-14 20:04 ` Abhishek 2019-04-05 9:16 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] cpuidle : Add auto-promotion flag to cpuidle flags Abhishek Goel 2019-04-05 9:16 ` Abhishek Goel 2019-04-08 14:22 ` Daniel Axtens 2019-04-08 14:22 ` Daniel Axtens 2019-04-08 14:22 ` Daniel Axtens
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=32cdf163-32b7-1011-16aa-8b40332832db@linux.vnet.ibm.com \ --to=huntbag@linux.vnet.ibm.com \ --cc=daniel.lezcano@linaro.org \ --cc=ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \ --cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \ --cc=rafael@kernel.org \ --cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
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.