From: Francisco Jerez <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <email@example.com> Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <email@example.com>, Linux PM <firstname.lastname@example.org>, LKML <email@example.com>, Amit Kucheria <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Pandruvada\, Srinivas" <email@example.com>, Rodrigo Vivi <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Peter Zijlstra <email@example.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/28] PM: QoS: Get rid of unuseful code and rework CPU latency QoS interface Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2020 12:32:42 -0800 [thread overview] Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> (raw) In-Reply-To: <CAJZ5v0hm2vVbM5dXGitvvUrWoZXZXXaJ+P3x38BjHRukZKgB3Q@mail.gmail.com> [-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6046 bytes --] "Rafael J. Wysocki" <email@example.com> writes: > On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 1:14 AM Francisco Jerez <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: >> >> "Rafael J. Wysocki" <email@example.com> writes: >> >> > On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 12:34 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > [cut] > >> > >> > I think that your use case is almost equivalent to the thermal >> > pressure one, so you'd want to limit the max and so that would be >> > something similar to store_max_perf_pct() with its input side hooked >> > up to a QoS list. >> > >> > But it looks like that QoS list would rather be of a "reservation" >> > type, so a request added to it would mean something like "leave this >> > fraction of power that appears to be available to the CPU subsystem >> > unused, because I need it for a different purpose". And in principle >> > there might be multiple requests in there at the same time and those >> > "reservations" would add up. So that would be a kind of "limited sum" >> > QoS type which wasn't even there before my changes. >> > >> > A user of that QoS list might then do something like >> > >> > ret = cpu_power_reserve_add(1, 4); >> > >> > meaning that it wants 25% of the "potential" CPU power to be not >> > utilized by CPU performance scaling and that could affect the >> > scheduler through load modifications (kind of along the thermal >> > pressure patchset discussed some time ago) and HWP (as well as the >> > non-HWP intel_pstate by preventing turbo frequencies from being used >> > etc). >> >> The problems with this are the same as with the per-CPU frequency QoS >> approach: How does the device driver know what the appropriate fraction >> of CPU power is? > > Of course it doesn't know and it may never know exactly, but it may guess. > > Also, it may set up a feedback loop: request an aggressive > reservation, run for a while, measure something and refine if there's > headroom. Then repeat. > Yeah, of course, but that's obviously more computationally intensive and less accurate than computing an approximately optimal constraint in a single iteration (based on knowledge from performance counters and a notion of the latency requirements of the application), since such a feedback loop relies on repeatedly overshooting and undershooting the optimal value (the latter causes an artificial CPU bottleneck, possibly slowing down other applications too) in order to converge to and remain in a neighborhood of the optimal value. Incidentally people tested a power balancing solution with a feedback loop very similar to the one you're describing side by side to the RFC patch series I provided a link to earlier (which targeted Gen9 LP parts), and the energy efficiency improvements they observed were roughly half of the improvement obtained with my series unsurprisingly. Not to speak about generalizing such a feedback loop to bottlenecks on multiple I/O devices. >> Depending on the instantaneous behavior of the >> workload it might take 1% or 95% of the CPU power in order to keep the >> IO device busy. Each user of this would need to monitor the performance >> of every CPU in the system and update the constraints on each of them >> periodically (whether or not they're talking to that IO device, which >> would possibly negatively impact the latency of unrelated applications >> running on other CPUs, unless we're willing to race with the task >> scheduler). > > No, it just needs to measure a signal representing how much power *it* > gets and decide whether or not it can let the CPU subsystem use more > power. > Well yes it's technically possible to set frequency constraints based on trial-and-error without sampling utilization information from the CPU cores, but don't we agree that this kind of information can be highly valuable? >> A solution based on utilization clamps (with some >> extensions) sounds more future-proof to me honestly. > > Except that it would be rather hard to connect it to something like > RAPL, which should be quite straightforward with the approach I'm > talking about. > I think using RAPL as additional control variable would be useful, but fully orthogonal to the cap being set by some global mechanism or being derived from the aggregation of a number of per-process power caps based on the scheduler behavior. The latter sounds like the more reasonable fit for a multi-tasking, possibly virtualized environment honestly. Either way RAPL is neither necessary nor sufficient in order to achieve the energy efficiency improvement I'm working on. > The problem with all scheduler-based ways, again, is that there is no > direct connection between the scheduler and HWP, I was planning to introduce such a connection in RFC part 2. I have a prototype for that based on a not particularly pretty custom interface, I wouldn't mind trying to get it to use utilization clamps if you think that's the way forward. > or even with whatever the processor does with the P-states in the > turbo range. If any P-state in the turbo range is requested, the > processor has a license to use whatever P-state it wants, so this > pretty much means allowing it to use as much power as it can. > > So in the first place, if you want to limit the use of power in the > CPU subsystem through frequency control alone, you need to prevent it > from using turbo P-states at all. However, with RAPL you can just > limit power which may still allow some (but not all) turbo P-states to > be used. My goal is not to limit the use of power of the CPU (if it has enough load to utilize 100% of the cycles at turbo frequency so be it), but to get it to use it more efficiently. If you are constrained by a given power budget (e.g. the TDP or the one you want set via RAPL) you can do more with it if you set a stable frequency rather than if you let the CPU bounce back and forth between turbo and idle. This can only be achieved effectively if the frequency governor has a rough idea of the latency requirements of the workload, since it involves a latency/energy-efficiency trade-off. [-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 227 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-02-14 20:31 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 83+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2020-02-11 22:51 Rafael J. Wysocki 2020-02-11 22:52 ` [PATCH 01/28] PM: QoS: Drop debugfs interface Rafael J. Wysocki 2020-02-11 22:58 ` [PATCH 02/28] PM: QoS: Drop pm_qos_update_request_timeout() Rafael J. Wysocki 2020-02-11 22:58 ` [PATCH 03/28] PM: QoS: Drop the PM_QOS_SUM QoS type Rafael J. Wysocki 2020-02-11 22:58 ` [PATCH 04/28] PM: QoS: Clean up pm_qos_update_target() and pm_qos_update_flags() Rafael J. Wysocki 2020-02-11 22:58 ` [PATCH 05/28] PM: QoS: Clean up pm_qos_read_value() and pm_qos_get/set_value() Rafael J. Wysocki 2020-02-11 22:59 ` [PATCH 06/28] PM: QoS: Drop iterations over global QoS classes Rafael J. Wysocki 2020-02-11 23:00 ` [PATCH 07/28] PM: QoS: Clean up misc device file operations Rafael J. Wysocki 2020-02-11 23:01 ` [PATCH 08/28] PM: QoS: Redefine struct pm_qos_request and drop struct pm_qos_object Rafael J. Wysocki 2020-02-11 23:02 ` [PATCH 09/28] PM: QoS: Drop PM_QOS_CPU_DMA_LATENCY notifier chain Rafael J. Wysocki 2020-02-11 23:04 ` [PATCH 10/28] PM: QoS: Rename things related to the CPU latency QoS Rafael J. Wysocki 2020-02-12 10:34 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2020-02-12 19:13 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman 2020-02-11 23:06 ` [PATCH 11/28] PM: QoS: Simplify definitions of CPU latency QoS trace events Rafael J. Wysocki 2020-02-11 23:07 ` [PATCH 12/28] PM: QoS: Adjust pm_qos_request() signature and reorder pm_qos.h Rafael J. Wysocki 2020-02-11 23:07 ` [PATCH 13/28] PM: QoS: Add CPU latency QoS API wrappers Rafael J. Wysocki 2020-02-11 23:08 ` [PATCH 14/28] cpuidle: Call cpu_latency_qos_limit() instead of pm_qos_request() Rafael J. Wysocki 2020-02-11 23:10 ` [PATCH 15/28] x86: platform: iosf_mbi: Call cpu_latency_qos_*() instead of pm_qos_*() Rafael J. Wysocki 2020-02-12 10:14 ` Andy Shevchenko 2020-02-11 23:12 ` [PATCH 16/28] drm: i915: " Rafael J. Wysocki 2020-02-11 23:12 ` [Intel-gfx] " Rafael J. Wysocki 2020-02-12 10:32 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2020-02-12 10:32 ` [Intel-gfx] " Rafael J. Wysocki 2020-02-14 7:42 ` Jani Nikula 2020-02-14 7:42 ` [Intel-gfx] " Jani Nikula 2020-02-11 23:13 ` [PATCH 17/28] drivers: hsi: " Rafael J. Wysocki 2020-02-13 21:06 ` Sebastian Reichel 2020-02-11 23:17 ` [PATCH 18/28] drivers: media: " Rafael J. Wysocki 2020-02-12 5:37 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab 2020-02-11 23:21 ` [PATCH 19/28] drivers: mmc: " Rafael J. Wysocki 2020-02-11 23:24 ` [PATCH 20/28] drivers: net: " Rafael J. Wysocki 2020-02-11 23:48 ` Jeff Kirsher 2020-02-12 5:49 ` Kalle Valo 2020-02-11 23:26 ` [PATCH 21/28] drivers: spi: " Rafael J. Wysocki 2020-02-11 23:26 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2020-02-11 23:27 ` [PATCH 22/28] drivers: tty: " Rafael J. Wysocki 2020-02-12 10:35 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2020-02-12 19:13 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman 2020-02-11 23:28 ` [PATCH 23/28] drivers: usb: " Rafael J. Wysocki 2020-02-12 18:38 ` Greg KH 2020-02-18 8:03 ` Peter Chen 2020-02-18 8:08 ` Greg KH 2020-02-18 8:11 ` Peter Chen 2020-02-19 1:09 ` Peter Chen 2020-02-11 23:34 ` [PATCH 24/28] sound: " Rafael J. Wysocki 2020-02-11 23:34 ` [alsa-devel] " Rafael J. Wysocki 2020-02-12 10:08 ` Mark Brown 2020-02-12 10:08 ` [alsa-devel] " Mark Brown 2020-02-12 10:16 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2020-02-12 10:16 ` [alsa-devel] " Rafael J. Wysocki 2020-02-12 10:21 ` Takashi Iwai 2020-02-12 10:21 ` [alsa-devel] " Takashi Iwai 2020-02-12 10:18 ` Mark Brown 2020-02-12 10:18 ` [alsa-devel] " Mark Brown 2020-02-11 23:35 ` [PATCH 25/28] PM: QoS: Drop PM_QOS_CPU_DMA_LATENCY and rename related functions Rafael J. Wysocki 2020-02-11 23:35 ` [PATCH 26/28] PM: QoS: Update file information comments Rafael J. Wysocki 2020-02-11 23:36 ` [PATCH 27/28] Documentation: PM: QoS: Update to reflect previous code changes Rafael J. Wysocki 2020-02-11 23:37 ` [PATCH 28/28] PM: QoS: Make CPU latency QoS depend on CONFIG_CPU_IDLE Rafael J. Wysocki 2020-02-12 8:37 ` [PATCH 00/28] PM: QoS: Get rid of unuseful code and rework CPU latency QoS interface Ulf Hansson 2020-02-12 9:17 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2020-02-12 9:39 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2020-02-12 23:32 ` Francisco Jerez 2020-02-13 0:16 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2020-02-13 0:37 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2020-02-13 8:10 ` Francisco Jerez 2020-02-13 11:38 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2020-02-21 22:10 ` Francisco Jerez 2020-02-24 0:29 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2020-02-24 21:06 ` Francisco Jerez 2020-02-13 8:07 ` Francisco Jerez 2020-02-13 11:34 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2020-02-13 16:35 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2020-02-14 0:15 ` Francisco Jerez 2020-02-14 10:42 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2020-02-14 20:32 ` Francisco Jerez [this message] 2020-02-24 10:39 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2020-02-24 21:16 ` Francisco Jerez 2020-02-14 0:14 ` Francisco Jerez 2020-02-13 7:10 ` Amit Kucheria 2020-02-13 10:17 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2020-02-13 10:22 ` Rafael J. Wysocki 2020-02-13 10:49 ` Amit Kucheria 2020-02-13 11:36 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
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 \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --subject='Re: [PATCH 00/28] PM: QoS: Get rid of unuseful code and rework CPU latency QoS interface' \ /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: link
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.