Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 15 Apr 2021 15:04:34 +0000 | From | Quentin Perret <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] PM / EM: Inefficient OPPs detection |
| |
On Thursday 15 Apr 2021 at 15:12:08 (+0100), Vincent Donnefort wrote: > On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 01:12:05PM +0000, Quentin Perret wrote: > > Hi Vincent, > > > > On Thursday 08 Apr 2021 at 18:10:29 (+0100), Vincent Donnefort wrote: > > > Some SoCs, such as the sd855 have OPPs within the same performance domain, > > > whose cost is higher than others with a higher frequency. Even though > > > those OPPs are interesting from a cooling perspective, it makes no sense > > > to use them when the device can run at full capacity. Those OPPs handicap > > > the performance domain, when choosing the most energy-efficient CPU and > > > are wasting energy. They are inefficient. > > > > > > Hence, add support for such OPPs to the Energy Model, which creates for > > > each OPP a performance state. The Energy Model can now be read using the > > > regular table, which contains all performance states available, or using > > > an efficient table, where inefficient performance states (and by > > > extension, inefficient OPPs) have been removed. > > > > > > Currently, the efficient table is used in two paths. Schedutil, and > > > find_energy_efficient_cpu(). We have to modify both paths in the same > > > patch so they stay synchronized. The thermal framework still relies on > > > the original table and hence, DevFreq devices won't create the efficient > > > table. > > > > > > As used in the hot-path, the efficient table is a lookup table, generated > > > dynamically when the perf domain is created. The complexity of searching > > > a performance state is hence changed from O(n) to O(1). This also > > > speeds-up em_cpu_energy() even if no inefficient OPPs have been found. > > > > Interesting. Do you have measurements showing the benefits on wake-up > > duration? I remember doing so by hacking the wake-up path to force tasks > > into feec()/compute_energy() even when overutilized, and then running > > hackbench. Maybe something like that would work for you? > > I'll give a try and see if I get improved numbers. > > > > > Just want to make sure we actually need all that complexity -- while > > it's good to reduce the asymptotic complexity, we're looking at a rather > > small problem (max 30 OPPs or so I expect?), so other effects may be > > dominating. Simply skipping inefficient OPPs could be implemented in a > > much simpler way I think. > > I could indeed just skip the perf state if marked as ineffective. But the idea > was to avoid bringing another for loop in this hot-path.
Right, though it would just extend a little bit the existing loop, so the overhead is unlikely to be noticeable.
> Also, not covered by this patch but probably we could get rid of the EM > complexity limit as the table resolution is way faster with this change.
Probably yeah. I was considering removing it since eb92692b2544 ("sched/fair: Speed-up energy-aware wake-ups") but ended up keeping it as it's entirely untested on large systems. But maybe we can reconsider.
Thanks, Quentin
| |