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=-17.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=unavailable 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 A4FBCC43381 for ; Tue, 9 Mar 2021 19:23:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A33F64F6C for ; Tue, 9 Mar 2021 19:23:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231445AbhCITWh (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Mar 2021 14:22:37 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:37648 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231313AbhCITWa (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Mar 2021 14:22:30 -0500 Received: from mail-wr1-x430.google.com (mail-wr1-x430.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::430]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D374C06174A for ; Tue, 9 Mar 2021 11:22:30 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wr1-x430.google.com with SMTP id h98so17895078wrh.11 for ; Tue, 09 Mar 2021 11:22:29 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=xECu7j4caESs4qHm6nqJu8LxqKwbnoC/gwB8ugNAdkc=; b=BKKl/bb1yN1pyDH8UWZznH7A8TAOnXuAaC4MDooNgYjaYTG1VFo1AV4DLU3R94Ta+q NAt26bRVkmCqFK/wJ9PDyeiL+mih9X8/U+5G2U7UONOCd5xIs3jcJ32qm4nG1/vqWYsd IiqgijkUbUPP33enyN7Sx/bA29KFzW+Uh1QBgHVczt1mkVDmbK4SPDR29beJcI2Q4K3w JvWvOVPgm5m87BlQF3AkS7n1MLiLrvdoodG9p4StzLa2PVT9VV0kMoRT+rDf65XBJ62L MWWbePM1yRVM8Gh6BPAQvxbtgO0qD184ny0WsN7Ew1hPJbY5EEFw2K6Rdbw46XFpuu1M iqwg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=xECu7j4caESs4qHm6nqJu8LxqKwbnoC/gwB8ugNAdkc=; b=H9jmuroa2oRq1zrqNWpErS0f5eYowyClxn51oOkrbvO2KuzHEthR8z0OcbDyl++ebT dVwcHa/n6EjCtqK5RvXl/vxjRjBCgdpTbK6LmjzqiUc2Rt+7zgtZ9+AUQpX4EAHO1t/Q 9iMAs5An+ziM15U4DAmGqKf3xfMIzSLBSSH5V2rBApNEN+xPaWQkBxjiR6oaGYfUgy2n EfnwiuF7IqCISWFsiydhKtSp22XvHXbGBXOyhdwa6lZLuQXOSw2eDR3sleVVthJA1PzI w6PWVf77VP/Up99ObyTlEvJexZzA6oB4rFtxEvAq/w4ac1At80Be8KoCBW92OqNgvdHK gqKQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533UJx7imnxIIk4+8inp4hjIykbWGwoBMaYVhhxvzwnNUZYE7oyN Nyl+TiogDW0alNNu0jTRhq6ceXenVRWgHA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz22jW2GRZbrjqfNQQ1FoRiVToCTnO3UqyZ3E6raDvxbIFc+7RE3uDldocx82g6E5b2Qz0s7g== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:118c:: with SMTP id g12mr30180353wrx.353.1615317748627; Tue, 09 Mar 2021 11:22:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPv6:2a01:e34:ed2f:f020:8018:efa9:4421:9140? ([2a01:e34:ed2f:f020:8018:efa9:4421:9140]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id n6sm5831025wmd.27.2021.03.09.11.22.27 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 09 Mar 2021 11:22:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] powercap/drivers/dtpm: Scale the power with the load To: Lukasz Luba Cc: rafael@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org References: <20210301212149.22877-1-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> <20210301212149.22877-5-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> From: Daniel Lezcano Message-ID: Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2021 20:22:27 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 09/03/2021 11:01, Lukasz Luba wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > I've started reviewing the series, please find some comments below. > > On 3/1/21 9:21 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote: >> Currently the power consumption is based on the current OPP power >> assuming the entire performance domain is fully loaded. >> >> That gives very gross power estimation and we can do much better by >> using the load to scale the power consumption. >> >> Use the utilization to normalize and scale the power usage over the >> max possible power. >> >> Tested on a rock960 with 2 big CPUS, the power consumption estimation >> conforms with the expected one. >> >> Before this change: >> >> ~$ ~/dhrystone -t 1 -l 10000& >> ~$ cat >> /sys/devices/virtual/powercap/dtpm/dtpm:0/dtpm:0:1/constraint_0_max_power_uw >> >> 2260000 >> >> After this change: >> >> ~$ ~/dhrystone -t 1 -l 10000& >> ~$ cat >> /sys/devices/virtual/powercap/dtpm/dtpm:0/dtpm:0:1/constraint_0_max_power_uw >> >> 1130000 >> >> ~$ ~/dhrystone -t 2 -l 10000& >> ~$ cat >> /sys/devices/virtual/powercap/dtpm/dtpm:0/dtpm:0:1/constraint_0_max_power_uw >> >> 2260000 >> >> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano >> --- >>   drivers/powercap/dtpm_cpu.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++---- >>   1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/powercap/dtpm_cpu.c b/drivers/powercap/dtpm_cpu.c >> index e728ebd6d0ca..8379b96468ef 100644 >> --- a/drivers/powercap/dtpm_cpu.c >> +++ b/drivers/powercap/dtpm_cpu.c >> @@ -68,27 +68,40 @@ static u64 set_pd_power_limit(struct dtpm *dtpm, >> u64 power_limit) >>       return power_limit; >>   } >>   +static u64 scale_pd_power_uw(struct cpumask *cpus, u64 power) > > renamed 'cpus' into 'pd_mask', see below > >> +{ >> +    unsigned long max, util; >> +    int cpu, load = 0; > > IMHO 'int load' looks odd when used with 'util' and 'max'. > I would put in the line above to have them all the same type and > renamed to 'sum_util'. > >> + >> +    for_each_cpu(cpu, cpus) { > > I would avoid the temporary CPU mask in the get_pd_power_uw() > with this modified loop: > > for_each_cpu_and(cpu, pd_mask, cpu_online_mask) { > > >> +        max = arch_scale_cpu_capacity(cpu); >> +        util = sched_cpu_util(cpu, max); >> +        load += ((util * 100) / max); > > Below you can find 3 optimizations. Since we are not in the hot > path here, it's up to if you would like to use all/some of them > or just ignore. > > 1st optimization. > If we use 'load += (util << 10) / max' in the loop, then > we could avoid div by 100 and use a right shift: > (power * load) >> 10 > > 2nd optimization. > Since we use EM CPU mask, which span all CPUs with the same > arch_scale_cpu_capacity(), you can avoid N divs inside the loop > and do it once, below the loop. > > 3rd optimization. > If we just simply add all 'util' into 'sum_util' (no mul or div in > the loop), then we might just have simple macro > > #define CALC_POWER_USAGE(power, sum_util, max) \ >     (((power * (sum_util << 10)) / max) >> 10) static u64 scale_pd_power_uw(struct cpumask *pd_mask, u64 power) { unsigned long max, sum_max = 0, sum_util = 0; int cpu; for_each_cpu_and(cpu, pd_mask, cpu_online_mask) { max = arch_scale_cpu_capacity(cpu); sum_util += sched_cpu_util(cpu, max); sum_max += max; } return (power * ((sum_util << 10) / sum_max)) >> 10; } ?? -- Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog