RE: [PATCH] cpuidle/drivers/mobile: Add new governor for mobile/embedded systems

["Doug Smythies" <dsmythies@telus.net>]

Hi Daniel,

I tried your "mobile" governor, albeit not on a mobile device.

On 2019.06.20 04:58 Daniel Lezcano wrote:

...

> The mobile governor is a new governor targeting embedded systems
> running on battery where the energy saving has a higher priority than
> servers or desktops. This governor aims to save energy as much as
> possible but with a performance degradation tolerance.
>
> In this way, we can optimize the governor for specific mobile workload
> and more generally embedded systems without impacting other platforms.

I just wanted to observe the lower energy, accepting performance
degradation. My workloads may have been inappropriate.

...

> +
> +#define EMA_ALPHA_VAL		64
> +#define EMA_ALPHA_SHIFT		7
> +#define MAX_RESCHED_INTERVAL_MS	100
> +
> +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct mobile_device, mobile_devices);
> +
> +static int mobile_ema_new(s64 value, s64 ema_old)
> +{
> +	if (likely(ema_old))
> +		return ema_old + (((value - ema_old) * EMA_ALPHA_VAL) >>
> +				  EMA_ALPHA_SHIFT);
> +	return value;
> +}

Do you have any information as to why these numbers?
Without any background, the filter seems overly new value weighted to me.
It is an infinite impulse response type filter, currently at:

output = 0.5 * old + 0.5 * new.

I tried, but didn't get anything conclusive:

output = 0.875 * old + 0.125 * new.

I did it this way:

#define EMA_ALPHA_VAL           7
#define EMA_ALPHA_SHIFT         3
#define MAX_RESCHED_INTERVAL_MS 100

static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct mobile_device, mobile_devices);

static int mobile_ema_new(s64 value, s64 ema_old)
{
        if (likely(ema_old))
                return ((ema_old * EMA_ALPHA_VAL) + value) >>
                                  EMA_ALPHA_SHIFT;
        return value;
}

...

> +	/*
> +	 * Sum all the residencies in order to compute the total
> +	 * duration of the idle task.
> +	 */
> +	residency = dev->last_residency - s->exit_latency;

What about when the CPU comes out of the idle state before it
even gets fully into it? Under such conditions it seems to hold
much too hard at idle states that are too deep, to the point
where energy goes up while performance goes down.

Anyway, I did a bunch of tests and such, but have deleted
most from this e-mail, because it's just noise. I'll
include just one set:

For a work load that would normally result in a lot of use
of shallow idle states (single core pipe-test * 2 cores).
I got (all kernel 5.2-rc5 + this patch):

Idle governor, teo; CPU frequency scaling: intel-cpufreq/ondemand;
Processor package power: 40.4 watts; 4.9 uSec/loop

Idle governor, teo; CPU frequency scaling: intel-cpufreq/ondemand;
Processor package power: 34 watts; 5.2 uSec/loop

Idle governor, mobile; CPU frequency scaling: intel-cpufreq/ondemand;
Processor package power: 25.9 watts; 11.1 uSec/loop

Idle governor, menu; CPU frequency scaling: intel-cpufreq/ondemand;
Processor package power: 34.2 watts; 5.23 uSec/loop

Idle governor, teo; CPU frequency scaling: intel-cpufreq/ondemand;
Maximum CPU frequency limited to 73% to match mobile energy.
Processor package power: 25.4 watts; 6.4 uSec/loop

... Doug