lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Nov]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v8 03/15] PM: Introduce an Energy Model management framework
Hi Vincent,

On Wednesday 07 Nov 2018 at 17:32:32 (+0100), Vincent Guittot wrote:
> Hi Quentin,
>
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 at 12:15, Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com> wrote:
> >
>
> > +
> > +/**
> > + * em_pd_energy() - Estimates the energy consumed by the CPUs of a perf. domain
> > + * @pd : performance domain for which energy has to be estimated
> > + * @max_util : highest utilization among CPUs of the domain
> > + * @sum_util : sum of the utilization of all CPUs in the domain
> > + *
> > + * Return: the sum of the energy consumed by the CPUs of the domain assuming
> > + * a capacity state satisfying the max utilization of the domain.
> > + */
> > +static inline unsigned long em_pd_energy(struct em_perf_domain *pd,
> > + unsigned long max_util, unsigned long sum_util)
> > +{
> > + unsigned long freq, scale_cpu;
> > + struct em_cap_state *cs;
> > + int i, cpu;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * In order to predict the capacity state, map the utilization of the
> > + * most utilized CPU of the performance domain to a requested frequency,
> > + * like schedutil.
> > + */
> > + cpu = cpumask_first(to_cpumask(pd->cpus));
> > + scale_cpu = arch_scale_cpu_capacity(NULL, cpu);
> > + cs = &pd->table[pd->nr_cap_states - 1];
> > + freq = map_util_freq(max_util, cs->frequency, scale_cpu);
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Find the lowest capacity state of the Energy Model above the
> > + * requested frequency.
> > + */
> > + for (i = 0; i < pd->nr_cap_states; i++) {
> > + cs = &pd->table[i];
> > + if (cs->frequency >= freq)
> > + break;
> > + }
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * The capacity of a CPU in the domain at that capacity state (cs)
> > + * can be computed as:
> > + *
> > + * cs->freq * scale_cpu
> > + * cs->cap = -------------------- (1)
> > + * cpu_max_freq
> > + *
> > + * So, ignoring the costs of idle states (which are not available in
> > + * the EM), the energy consumed by this CPU at that capacity state is
> > + * estimated as:
> > + *
> > + * cs->power * cpu_util
> > + * cpu_nrg = -------------------- (2)
> > + * cs->cap
> > + *
> > + * since 'cpu_util / cs->cap' represents its percentage of busy time.
> > + *
> > + * NOTE: Although the result of this computation actually is in
> > + * units of power, it can be manipulated as an energy value
> > + * over a scheduling period, since it is assumed to be
> > + * constant during that interval.
> > + *
> > + * By injecting (1) in (2), 'cpu_nrg' can be re-expressed as a product
> > + * of two terms:
> > + *
> > + * cs->power * cpu_max_freq cpu_util
> > + * cpu_nrg = ------------------------ * --------- (3)
> > + * cs->freq scale_cpu
> > + *
> > + * The first term is static, and is stored in the em_cap_state struct
> > + * as 'cs->cost'.
> > + *
> > + * Since all CPUs of the domain have the same micro-architecture, they
> > + * share the same 'cs->cost', and the same CPU capacity. Hence, the
> > + * total energy of the domain (which is the simple sum of the energy of
> > + * all of its CPUs) can be factorized as:
> > + *
> > + * cs->cost * \Sum cpu_util
> > + * pd_nrg = ------------------------ (4)
> > + * scale_cpu
> > + */
> > + return cs->cost * sum_util / scale_cpu;
>
> Why do you need to keep scale_cpu outside the cs->cost ? do you expect
> arch_scale_cpu_capacity() to change at runtime ?

Unfortunately yes, it can. It'll change at least during boot on arm64,
for example (see drivers/base/arch_topology.c). And also, userspace can
actually set that value via sysfs ...

> If the returned value of arch_scale_cpu_capacity() changes, we will
> have to rebuild several others things and we can include the update of
> cs->cost

Yeah, that was the original approach I had actually. Some of the older
versions of this patch set were doing just that. The only issue is that,
in order to make the cs->cost updatable are run time, you need to
introduce some level of protection around that data structure (RCU or
something). And that would make it a bit harder for IPA (for example) to
access the data -- it doesn't need any kind of RCU to access it's EM at
the moment.

We can probably do something a bit smarter and introduce RCU protection
only for the 'cost' field or something, but I was hoping that we could
keep things simple for now and do that kind of small optimization a bit
later :-)

Thanks,
Quentin

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-11-07 18:04    [W:0.057 / U:0.720 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site