From: Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@linux.ibm.com> To: Michal Such?nek <msuchanek@suse.de> Cc: "Gautham R. Shenoy" <ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>, Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>, Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>, "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com>, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, joedecke@de.ibm.com, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpuidle/pseries: Fixup CEDE0 latency only for POWER10 onwards Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2021 23:59:30 +0530 [thread overview] Message-ID: <YIMSCjTzcSwjQtRi@drishya.in.ibm.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20210423174505.GE6564@kitsune.suse.cz> * Michal Such?nek <msuchanek@suse.de> [2021-04-23 19:45:05]: > On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 09:29:39PM +0530, Vaidyanathan Srinivasan wrote: > > * Michal Such?nek <msuchanek@suse.de> [2021-04-23 09:35:51]: > > > > > On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 08:37:29PM +0530, Gautham R. Shenoy wrote: > > > > From: "Gautham R. Shenoy" <ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > > > > > > > Commit d947fb4c965c ("cpuidle: pseries: Fixup exit latency for > > > > CEDE(0)") sets the exit latency of CEDE(0) based on the latency values > > > > of the Extended CEDE states advertised by the platform > > > > > > > > On some of the POWER9 LPARs, the older firmwares advertise a very low > > > > value of 2us for CEDE1 exit latency on a Dedicated LPAR. However the > > > Can you be more specific about 'older firmwares'? > > > > Hi Michal, > > > > This is POWER9 vs POWER10 difference, not really an obsolete FW. The > > key idea behind the original patch was to make the H_CEDE latency and > > hence target residency come from firmware instead of being decided by > > the kernel. The advantage is such that, different type of systems in > > POWER10 generation can adjust this value and have an optimal H_CEDE > > entry criteria which balances good single thread performance and > > wakeup latency. Further we can have additional H_CEDE state to feed > > into the cpuidle. > > So all POWER9 machines are affected by the firmware bug where firmware > reports CEDE1 exit latency of 2us and the real latency is 5us which > causes the kernel to prefer CEDE1 too much when relying on the values > supplied by the firmware. It is not about 'older firmware'. Correct. All POWER9 systems running Linux as guest LPARs will see extra usage of CEDE idle state, but not baremetal (PowerNV). The correct definition of the bug or miss-match in expectation is that firmware reports wakeup latency from a core/thread wakeup timing, but not end-to-end time from sending a wakeup event like an IPI using H_calls and receiving the events on the target. Practically there are few extra micro-seconds needed after deciding to wakeup a target core/thread to getting the target to start executing instructions within the LPAR instance. > I still think it would be preferrable to adjust the latency value > reported by the firmware to match reality over a kernel workaround. Right, practically we can fix for future releases and as such we targeted this scheme from POWER10 but expected no harm on POWER9 which proved to be wrong. We can possibly change this FW value for POWER9, but it is too expensive and not practical because many release streams exist for different platforms and further customers are at different streams as well. We cannot force all of them to update because that blows up co-dependency matrix. From a user/customer's view current kernel worked fine, why is a kernel update changing my performance :( Looking back, we should have boxed any kernel-firmware dependent feature like this one to a future releases only. We have all options open for a future release like POWER10, but on a released product stream, we have to manage with kernel changes. In this specific case we should have been very conservative and not allow the kernel to change behaviour on released products. Thanks, Vaidy
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Vaidyanathan Srinivasan <svaidy@linux.ibm.com> To: Michal Such?nek <msuchanek@suse.de> Cc: "Gautham R. Shenoy" <ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com>, Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>, joedecke@de.ibm.com, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpuidle/pseries: Fixup CEDE0 latency only for POWER10 onwards Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2021 23:59:30 +0530 [thread overview] Message-ID: <YIMSCjTzcSwjQtRi@drishya.in.ibm.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20210423174505.GE6564@kitsune.suse.cz> * Michal Such?nek <msuchanek@suse.de> [2021-04-23 19:45:05]: > On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 09:29:39PM +0530, Vaidyanathan Srinivasan wrote: > > * Michal Such?nek <msuchanek@suse.de> [2021-04-23 09:35:51]: > > > > > On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 08:37:29PM +0530, Gautham R. Shenoy wrote: > > > > From: "Gautham R. Shenoy" <ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > > > > > > > Commit d947fb4c965c ("cpuidle: pseries: Fixup exit latency for > > > > CEDE(0)") sets the exit latency of CEDE(0) based on the latency values > > > > of the Extended CEDE states advertised by the platform > > > > > > > > On some of the POWER9 LPARs, the older firmwares advertise a very low > > > > value of 2us for CEDE1 exit latency on a Dedicated LPAR. However the > > > Can you be more specific about 'older firmwares'? > > > > Hi Michal, > > > > This is POWER9 vs POWER10 difference, not really an obsolete FW. The > > key idea behind the original patch was to make the H_CEDE latency and > > hence target residency come from firmware instead of being decided by > > the kernel. The advantage is such that, different type of systems in > > POWER10 generation can adjust this value and have an optimal H_CEDE > > entry criteria which balances good single thread performance and > > wakeup latency. Further we can have additional H_CEDE state to feed > > into the cpuidle. > > So all POWER9 machines are affected by the firmware bug where firmware > reports CEDE1 exit latency of 2us and the real latency is 5us which > causes the kernel to prefer CEDE1 too much when relying on the values > supplied by the firmware. It is not about 'older firmware'. Correct. All POWER9 systems running Linux as guest LPARs will see extra usage of CEDE idle state, but not baremetal (PowerNV). The correct definition of the bug or miss-match in expectation is that firmware reports wakeup latency from a core/thread wakeup timing, but not end-to-end time from sending a wakeup event like an IPI using H_calls and receiving the events on the target. Practically there are few extra micro-seconds needed after deciding to wakeup a target core/thread to getting the target to start executing instructions within the LPAR instance. > I still think it would be preferrable to adjust the latency value > reported by the firmware to match reality over a kernel workaround. Right, practically we can fix for future releases and as such we targeted this scheme from POWER10 but expected no harm on POWER9 which proved to be wrong. We can possibly change this FW value for POWER9, but it is too expensive and not practical because many release streams exist for different platforms and further customers are at different streams as well. We cannot force all of them to update because that blows up co-dependency matrix. From a user/customer's view current kernel worked fine, why is a kernel update changing my performance :( Looking back, we should have boxed any kernel-firmware dependent feature like this one to a future releases only. We have all options open for a future release like POWER10, but on a released product stream, we have to manage with kernel changes. In this specific case we should have been very conservative and not allow the kernel to change behaviour on released products. Thanks, Vaidy
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-04-23 18:29 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2021-04-22 15:07 [PATCH] cpuidle/pseries: Fixup CEDE0 latency only for POWER10 onwards Gautham R. Shenoy 2021-04-22 15:07 ` Gautham R. Shenoy 2021-04-22 17:57 ` Vaidyanathan Srinivasan 2021-04-22 17:57 ` Vaidyanathan Srinivasan 2021-04-23 7:35 ` Michal Suchánek 2021-04-23 7:35 ` Michal Suchánek 2021-04-23 15:59 ` Vaidyanathan Srinivasan 2021-04-23 15:59 ` Vaidyanathan Srinivasan 2021-04-23 17:45 ` Michal Suchánek 2021-04-23 17:45 ` Michal Suchánek 2021-04-23 18:29 ` Vaidyanathan Srinivasan [this message] 2021-04-23 18:29 ` Vaidyanathan Srinivasan 2021-04-23 18:42 ` Michal Suchánek 2021-04-23 18:42 ` Michal Suchánek 2021-04-24 7:37 ` Vaidyanathan Srinivasan 2021-04-24 7:37 ` Vaidyanathan Srinivasan 2021-04-25 11:07 ` Michal Suchánek 2021-04-25 11:07 ` Michal Suchánek 2021-04-28 5:58 ` Gautham R Shenoy 2021-04-28 5:58 ` Gautham R Shenoy 2021-04-28 8:03 ` Michal Suchánek 2021-04-28 8:03 ` Michal Suchánek 2021-04-28 11:34 ` Gautham R Shenoy 2021-04-28 11:34 ` Gautham R Shenoy
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=YIMSCjTzcSwjQtRi@drishya.in.ibm.com \ --to=svaidy@linux.ibm.com \ --cc=aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com \ --cc=daniel.lezcano@linaro.org \ --cc=ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com \ --cc=joedecke@de.ibm.com \ --cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \ --cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \ --cc=msuchanek@suse.de \ --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.