Messages in this thread | | | From | Vincent Guittot <> | Date | Wed, 7 Jul 2021 10:00:13 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/3] sched/fair: Prepare variables for increased precision of EAS estimated energy |
| |
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
> > 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.
| |