From: Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@linaro.org>
To: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
Cc: Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>,
kevin.wangtao@linaro.org, leo.yan@linaro.org,
vincent.guittot@linaro.org, amit.kachhap@gmail.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, javi.merino@kernel.org,
rui.zhang@intel.com, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 0/7] CPU cooling device new strategies
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 12:03:52 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180308120352.mko2b775ppquverb@oak.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1c07a155-d8e8-480f-937a-6022cda15d0b@linaro.org>
On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 07:57:17PM +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> >> The preliminary benchmarks show the following changes:
> >>
> >> On the hikey6220, dhrystone shows a throughtput increase of 40% for an
> >> increase of the latency of 16% while sysbench shows a latency increase
> >> of 5%.
> >
> > I don't follow these numbers. Throughput increase while injecting idle?
> > compared to what? percentages of what? Please be more specific to better
> > describer your work..
>
> The dhrystone throughput is based on the virtual timer, when we are
> running, it is at max opp, so the throughput increases. But regarding
> the real time, it takes obviously more time to achieve as we are
> artificially inserting idle cycles. With the cpufreq governor, we run at
> a lower opp, so the throughput is less for dhrystone but it takes less
> time to achieve.
>
> Percentages are comparing cpufreq vs cpuidle cooling devices. I will
> take care of presenting the results in a more clear way in the next version.
I think we should also note that the current hikey settings for cpufreq
are very badly tuned for this platform. It has a single temp threshold
and it jumps from max freq to min freq.
IIRC Leo's work on Hikey thermals correctly it would be much better if
it used the power-allocator thermal governor or if if copied some of
the Samsung 32-bit platform by configuring the step governor with a
graduated with a slightly lower threshold that moves two stops back in
the OPP table (which is still fairly high clock speed... but it
thermally sustainable).
Daniel.
> >> Initially, the first version provided also the cpuidle + cpufreq combo
> >> cooling device but regarding the latest comments, there is a misfit with
> >> how the cpufreq cooling device and suspend/resume/cpu hotplug/module
> >> loading|unloading behave together while the combo cooling device was
> >> designed assuming the cpufreq cooling device was always there. This
> >> dynamic is investigated and the combo cooling device will be posted
> >> separetely after this series gets merged.
> >
> > Yeah, this is one of the confusing parts. Could you please
> > remind us of the limitations here? Why can't we enable CPUfreq
> > on higher trip points and CPUidle on lower trip points, for example?
>
> Sorry, I'm not getting the question. We don't want to enable cpuidle or
> cpufreq at certain point but combine the cooling effect of both in order
> to get the best tradeoff power / performance.
>
> Let me give an example with a simple SoC - one core.
>
> Let's say we have 4 OPPs and a core-sleep idle state. Respectively, the
> OPPs consume 100mW, 500mW, 2W, 4W. Now the CPU is in an intensive work
> running at the highest OPP, thus consuming 4W. The temperature increases
> and reaches 75°C which is the mitigation point and where the sustainable
> power is 1.7W.
>
> - With the cpufreq cooling device, we can't have 4W, so we go back and
> forth between 2W and 500mW.
>
> - With the cpuidle cooling device, we are at the highest OPP (there is
> no cpufreq driver) and we insert 47.5% of idle duration
>
> - With the combo cooling device, we compute the round-up OPP (here 2W)
> and we insert idle cycles for the remaining power to reach the
> sustainable power, so 15%.
>
> With the combo, we increase the performances for the same requested
> power. There is no yet the state2power callbacks but we expect the
> combination of dropping the static leakage and the higher OPP to give
> better results in terms of performance and mitigation on energy eager
> CPUs like the recent big ARM cpus with the IPA governor.
>
> Going straight to the point of your question above, we can see the
> cpufreq cooling device and the cpuidle cooling device have to
> collaborate. If we unregister the cpufreq device, we have to do the math
> for the power again in the combo cooling device. It is not a problem by
> itself but needs an extra reflexion in the current code.
>
> > Specially from a system design point of view, the system engineer
> > typically would benefit of idle injections to achieve overall
> > average CPU frequencies in a more granular fashion, for example,
> > achieving performance vs. cooling between available real
> > frequencies, avoiding real switches.
> >
> > Also, there is a major design question here. After Linaro's attempt
> > to send a cpufreq+cpuidle cooling device(s), there was an attempt
> > to generalize and extend intel powerclamp driver.
>
> I'm not aware of such attempt.
>
> > Do you mind
> > explaining why refactoring intel powerclamp is not possible? Basic
> > idea is the same, no?
>
> Basically the idea is the same: run synchronized idle thread and call
> play_idle(). That is all. Putting apart the intel_powerclamp is very x86
> centric and contains a plethora of code not fitting our purpose, it
> increases the idle duration while we are increasing the number of idle
> cycles but keep the idle duration constant in order to have a control on
> the latency for the user interactivity. If you compare the idle
> injection threads codes (powerclamp and cpuidle cooling device), you
> will also notice they are very different in terms of implementation.
>
> The combo cooling device collaborates with the cpufreq cooling device
> and reuses the DT binding, and finally it uses the power information
> provided in the DT. The idle injection is a brick to the combo cooling
> device.
>
> Initially I thought we should refactor the intel_powerclamp but it
> appears the combo cooling device reuses the cpufreq and cpuidle cooling
> device, making sense to have them all in a single file and evolving to a
> single cooling device with different strategies.
>
>
>
> >> Daniel Lezcano (7):
> >> thermal/drivers/cpu_cooling: Fixup the header and copyright
> >> thermal/drivers/cpu_cooling: Add Software Package Data Exchange (SPDX)
> >> thermal/drivers/cpu_cooling: Remove pointless field
> >> thermal/drivers/Kconfig: Convert the CPU cooling device to a choice
> >> thermal/drivers/cpu_cooling: Add idle cooling device documentation
> >> thermal/drivers/cpu_cooling: Introduce the cpu idle cooling driver
> >> cpuidle/drivers/cpuidle-arm: Register the cooling device
> >>
> >> Documentation/thermal/cpu-idle-cooling.txt | 165 ++++++++++
> >> drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-arm.c | 5 +
> >> drivers/thermal/Kconfig | 30 +-
> >> drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c | 480 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> >> include/linux/cpu_cooling.h | 15 +-
> >> 5 files changed, 668 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
> >> create mode 100644 Documentation/thermal/cpu-idle-cooling.txt
> >>
> >> --
> >> 2.7.4
> >>
>
>
> --
> <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
>
> Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
> <http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
> <http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-03-08 12:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <1519226968-19821-1-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
[not found] ` <1519226968-19821-6-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
2018-03-06 23:19 ` [PATCH V2 5/7] thermal/drivers/cpu_cooling: Add idle cooling device documentation Pavel Machek
2018-03-07 11:42 ` Daniel Lezcano
2018-03-08 8:59 ` Pavel Machek
2018-03-08 11:54 ` Daniel Thompson
2018-03-07 17:09 ` [PATCH V2 0/7] CPU cooling device new strategies Eduardo Valentin
2018-03-07 18:57 ` Daniel Lezcano
2018-03-08 12:03 ` Daniel Thompson [this message]
2018-03-26 14:30 ` Leo Yan
2018-03-27 9:35 ` Daniel Lezcano
[not found] ` <1519226968-19821-7-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
[not found] ` <20180223073432.GF26947@vireshk-i7>
[not found] ` <faaf027c-e01c-6801-9a0c-ab7e0ba669a1@linaro.org>
2018-02-26 4:30 ` [PATCH V2 6/7] thermal/drivers/cpu_cooling: Introduce the cpu idle cooling driver Viresh Kumar
2018-03-13 19:15 ` Daniel Lezcano
2018-04-04 8:50 ` Daniel Lezcano
2018-04-05 4:49 ` Viresh Kumar
2018-03-27 3:43 ` Leo Yan
2018-03-27 11:10 ` Daniel Lezcano
2018-03-27 2:03 ` Leo Yan
2018-03-27 10:26 ` Daniel Lezcano
2018-03-27 12:28 ` Juri Lelli
2018-03-27 12:31 ` Daniel Lezcano
2018-03-27 13:08 ` Juri Lelli
2018-03-27 3:35 ` Leo Yan
2018-03-27 10:56 ` Daniel Lezcano
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=20180308120352.mko2b775ppquverb@oak.lan \
--to=daniel.thompson@linaro.org \
--cc=amit.kachhap@gmail.com \
--cc=daniel.lezcano@linaro.org \
--cc=edubezval@gmail.com \
--cc=javi.merino@kernel.org \
--cc=kevin.wangtao@linaro.org \
--cc=leo.yan@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rui.zhang@intel.com \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
/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
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).