linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Chris Redpath <Chris.Redpath@arm.com>,
	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
	Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>,
	Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>,
	"open list:THERMAL" <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	segall@google.com, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
	Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
	CCj.Yeh@mediatek.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] sched/fair: Prepare variables for increased precision of EAS estimated energy
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2021 09:23:54 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <2f43b211-da86-9d48-4e41-1c63359865bb@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKfTPtAbck=mTR4g9L1hVGzN2dz4PjKNXoDZeMH19HGwpW3Buw@mail.gmail.com>



On 7/7/21 9:00 AM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 at 09:49, Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/7/21 8:07 AM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
>>> On Fri, 25 Jun 2021 at 17:26, Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The Energy Aware Scheduler (EAS) tries to find best CPU for a waking up
>>>> task. It probes many possibilities and compares the estimated energy values
>>>> for different scenarios. For calculating those energy values it relies on
>>>> Energy Model (EM) data and em_cpu_energy(). The precision which is used in
>>>> EM data is in milli-Watts (or abstract scale), which sometimes is not
>>>> sufficient. In some cases it might happen that two CPUs from different
>>>> Performance Domains (PDs) get the same calculated value for a given task
>>>> placement, but in more precised scale, they might differ. This rounding
>>>> error has to be addressed. This patch prepares EAS code for better
>>>> precision in the coming EM improvements.
>>>
>>> Could you explain why 32bits results are not enough and you need to
>>> move to 64bits ?
>>>
>>> Right now the result is in the range [0..2^32[ mW. If you need more
>>> precision and you want to return uW instead, you will have a result in
>>> the range  [0..4kW[ which seems to be still enough
>>>
>>
>> Currently we have the max value limit for 'power' in EM which is
>> EM_MAX_POWER 0xffff (64k - 1). We allow to register such big power
>> values ~64k mW (~64Watts) for an OPP. Then based on 'power' we
>> pre-calculate 'cost' fields:
>> cost[i] = power[i] * freq_max / freq[i]
>> So, for max freq the cost == power. Let's use that in the example.
>>
>> Then the em_cpu_energy() calculates as follow:
>> cost * sum_util / scale_cpu
>> We are interested in the first part - the value of multiplication.
> 
> But all these are internal computations of the energy model. At the
> end, the computed energy that is returned by compute_energy() and
> em_cpu_energy(), fits in a long

Let's take a look at existing *10000 precision for x CPUs:
cost * sum_util / scale_cpu =
(64k *10000) * (x * 800) / 1024
which is:
x * ~500mln

So to be close to overflowing u32 the 'x' has to be > (?=) 8
(depends on sum_util).

> 
>>
>> The sum_util values that we can see for x CPUs which have scale_cap=1024
>> can be close to 800, let's use it in the example:
>> cost * sum_util = 64k * (x * 800), where
>> x=4: ~200mln
>> x=8: ~400mln
>> x=16: ~800mln
>> x=64: ~3200mln (last one which would fit in u32)
>>
>> When we increase the precision by even 100, then the above values won't
>> fit in the u32. Even a max cost of e.g. 10k mW and 100 precision has
>> issues:
>> cost * sum_util = (10k *100) * (x * 800), where
>> x=4: ~3200mln
>> x=8: ~6400mln
>>
>> For *1000 precision even a power of 1Watt becomes an issue:
>> cost * sum_util = (1k *1000) * (x * 800), where
>> x=4: ~3200mln
>> x=8: ~6400mln
>>
>> That's why to make the code safe for bigger power values, I had to use
>> the u64 on 32bit machines.

  reply	other threads:[~2021-07-07  8:24 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-06-25 15:26 [PATCH 0/3] Improve EAS energy estimation and increase precision Lukasz Luba
2021-06-25 15:26 ` [PATCH 1/3] sched/fair: Prepare variables for increased precision of EAS estimated energy Lukasz Luba
2021-06-30 17:01   ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2021-06-30 17:28     ` Lukasz Luba
2021-07-02 19:07       ` Lukasz Luba
2021-07-07  7:07   ` Vincent Guittot
2021-07-07  7:49     ` Lukasz Luba
2021-07-07  8:00       ` Vincent Guittot
2021-07-07  8:23         ` Lukasz Luba [this message]
2021-07-07  9:37           ` Vincent Guittot
2021-07-07  9:48             ` Lukasz Luba
2021-07-07  9:56               ` Vincent Guittot
2021-07-07 10:06                 ` Lukasz Luba
2021-07-07 10:11                   ` Vincent Guittot
2021-07-07 10:29                     ` Lukasz Luba
2021-07-07 10:32                       ` Vincent Guittot
2021-07-07 10:41                         ` Lukasz Luba
2021-07-07 10:50                           ` Vincent Guittot
2021-07-07 11:02                             ` Lukasz Luba
2021-07-07 13:53                               ` Vincent Guittot
2021-07-07 14:25                                 ` Lukasz Luba
2021-07-07  9:45           ` Dietmar Eggemann
2021-07-07  9:54             ` Lukasz Luba
2021-06-25 15:26 ` [PATCH 2/3] PM: EM: Make em_cpu_energy() able to return bigger values Lukasz Luba
2021-07-05 12:44   ` Dietmar Eggemann
2021-07-06 19:44     ` Lukasz Luba
2021-07-07  7:07   ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-07-07  8:09     ` Lukasz Luba
2021-07-07 10:01       ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-07-07 10:23         ` Lukasz Luba
2021-06-25 15:26 ` [PATCH 3/3] PM: EM: Increase energy calculation precision Lukasz Luba
2021-07-05 12:45   ` Dietmar Eggemann
2021-07-06 19:51     ` Lukasz Luba

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=2f43b211-da86-9d48-4e41-1c63359865bb@arm.com \
    --to=lukasz.luba@arm.com \
    --cc=CCj.Yeh@mediatek.com \
    --cc=Chris.Redpath@arm.com \
    --cc=bristot@redhat.com \
    --cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
    --cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mgorman@suse.de \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=morten.rasmussen@arm.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=qperret@google.com \
    --cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=segall@google.com \
    --cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
    --cc=viresh.kumar@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).