From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 253D8C433E6 for ; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 15:34:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D53B2068F for ; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 15:34:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1732651AbgGVPeH (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Jul 2020 11:34:07 -0400 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:28760 "EHLO mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728256AbgGVPeH (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Jul 2020 11:34:07 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098417.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 06MF1qNr104578; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 11:33:30 -0400 Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 32e1vs074c-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 22 Jul 2020 11:33:29 -0400 Received: from m0098417.ppops.net (m0098417.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.36/8.16.0.36) with SMTP id 06MF1twN104659; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 11:33:29 -0400 Received: from ppma03fra.de.ibm.com (6b.4a.5195.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [149.81.74.107]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 32e1vs072y-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 22 Jul 2020 11:33:28 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma03fra.de.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma03fra.de.ibm.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 06MFCuiV022177; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 15:33:26 GMT Received: from b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay10.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.195]) by ppma03fra.de.ibm.com with ESMTP id 32brq82qvg-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 22 Jul 2020 15:33:26 +0000 Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.160]) by b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 06MFXOtX23593370 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 22 Jul 2020 15:33:24 GMT Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02D32A4054; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 15:33:24 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC2ACA4060; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 15:33:21 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [9.77.192.138] (unknown [9.77.192.138]) by b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Wed, 22 Jul 2020 15:33:21 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] Selftest for cpuidle latency measurement To: Daniel Lezcano , rjw@rjwysocki.net, mpe@ellerman.id.au, benh@kernel.crashing.org, paulus@samba.org, srivatsa@csail.mit.edu, shuah@kernel.org, npiggin@gmail.com, ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com, svaidy@linux.ibm.com, pratik.r.sampat@gmail.com, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org References: <20200721124300.65615-1-psampat@linux.ibm.com> <17e884b8-09d8-98a8-3890-bf506d2cdfca@linaro.org> From: Pratik Sampat Message-ID: Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 21:03:20 +0530 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <17e884b8-09d8-98a8-3890-bf506d2cdfca@linaro.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.235,18.0.687 definitions=2020-07-22_08:2020-07-22,2020-07-22 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 mlxlogscore=838 malwarescore=0 priorityscore=1501 adultscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 bulkscore=0 phishscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 clxscore=1015 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2006250000 definitions=main-2007220104 Sender: linux-kselftest-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org Hello Daniel, On 21/07/20 8:27 pm, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > On 21/07/2020 14:42, Pratik Rajesh Sampat wrote: >> v2: https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/7/17/369 >> Changelog v2-->v3 >> Based on comments from Gautham R. Shenoy adding the following in the >> selftest, >> 1. Grepping modules to determine if already loaded >> 2. Wrapper to enable/disable states >> 3. Preventing any operation/test on offlined CPUs >> --- >> >> The patch series introduces a mechanism to measure wakeup latency for >> IPI and timer based interrupts >> The motivation behind this series is to find significant deviations >> behind advertised latency and resisdency values > Why do you want to measure for the timer and the IPI ? Whatever the > source of the wakeup, the exit latency remains the same, no ? > > Is all this kernel-ish code really needed ? > > What about using a highres periodic timer and make it expires every eg. > 50ms x 2400, so it is 120 secondes and measure the deviation. Repeat the > operation for each idle states. > > And in order to make it as much accurate as possible, set the program > affinity on a CPU and isolate this one by preventing other processes to > be scheduled on and migrate the interrupts on the other CPUs. > > That will be all userspace code, no? > > The kernel module may not needed now that you mention it. IPI latencies could be measured using pipes and threads using pthread_attr_setaffinity_np to control the experiment, as you suggested. This should internally fire a smp_call_function_single. The original idea was to essentially measure it as closely as possible in the kernel without involving the kernel-->userspace overhead. However, the user-space approach may not be too much of a problem as we are collecting a baseline and the delta of the latency is what we would be concerned about anyways! With respect to measuring both timers and IPI latencies: In principle yes, the exit latency should remain the same but if there is a deviation in reality we may want to measure it. I'll implement this experiment in the userspace and get back with the numbers to confirm. Thanks for your comments! Best, Pratik > >