Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | From | "Doug Smythies" <> | Subject | RE: [RFT][PATCH v2 0/3] cpuidle: teo: Do not check timers unconditionally every time | Date | Tue, 8 Aug 2023 08:22:32 -0700 |
| |
On 2023.08.03 14:33 Rafael wrote: > On Thu, Aug 3, 2023 at 11:12 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote: >> >> Hi Folks, >> >> This is the second iteration of: >> >> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-pm/4511619.LvFx2qVVIh@kreacher/ >> >> with an additional patch. >> >> There are some small modifications of patch [1/3] and the new >> patch causes governor statistics to play a role in deciding whether >> or not to stop the scheduler tick. >> >> Testing would be much appreciated! > > For convenience, this series is now available in the following git branch: > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rafael/linux-pm.git \ > pm-cpuidle-teo
Hi Rafael,
Thank you for the git branch link.
I did some testing:
Disclaimer: I used areas of focus derived from the original teo-util work last fall, and did not check if they were still the best places to look for issues.
CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-10600K CPU @ 4.10GHz HWP: enabled CPU frequency scaling driver: intel_pstate CPU frequency scaling governor: performance Kernel 1: 6.5-rc4 (1000 Hz tick rate) Kernel 2: kernel 1 + this patch series (called "rjw") System is extremely idle, other than the test work.
All tests were done with all idle governors: menu, teo, ladder, rjw.
Test 1: 2 core ping pong sweep:
Pass a token between 2 CPUs on 2 different cores. Do a variable amount of work at each stop.
Purpose: To utilize the shallowest idle states and observe the transition from using more of 1 idle state to another.
Results:
teo and rjw track fairly well, with rjw reducing its use of idle state 0 before teo as the work packet increases. The menu governor does best overall, but performs worse over a greater range of token loop times.
Details (power and idle stats; times): http://smythies.com/~doug/linux/idle/teo-util2/ping-sweep/2-1/perf/ http://smythies.com/~doug/linux/idle/teo-util2/ping-sweep/2-1/2-core-ping-pong-sweep.png
Test 2: 6 core ping pong sweep:
Pass a token between 6 CPUs on 6 different cores. Do a variable amount of work at each stop.
Purpose: To utilize the midrange idle states and observe the transitions from between use of idle states.
Results: There is some instability in the results in the early stages. For unknown reasons, the rjw governor sometimes works slower and at lower power. The condition is not 100% repeatable.
Overall teo completed the test fastest (54.9 minutes) Followed by menu (56.2 minutes), then rjw (56.7 minutes), then ladder (58.4 minutes). teo is faster throughout the latter stages of the test, but at the cost of more power. The differences seem to be in the transition from idle state 1 to idle state 2 usage.
Details (power and idle stats; times): http://smythies.com/~doug/linux/idle/teo-util2/ping-sweep/6-2/perf/ http://smythies.com/~doug/linux/idle/teo-util2/ping-sweep/6-2/6-core-ping-pong-sweep.png http://smythies.com/~doug/linux/idle/teo-util2/ping-sweep/6-2/6-core-ping-pong-sweep-detail-a.png http://smythies.com/~doug/linux/idle/teo-util2/ping-sweep/6-2/6-core-ping-pong-sweep-detail-b.png http://smythies.com/~doug/linux/idle/teo-util2/ping-sweep/6-2/6-core-ping-pong-sweep-diffs.png
a re-run power and idle stats, showing inconsistent behaviour. teo and rjw only, and no timing data: http://smythies.com/~doug/linux/idle/teo-util2/ping-sweep/6-1/perf/
Test 3: sleeping ebizzy - 128 threads.
Purpose: This test has given interesting results in the past. The test varies the sleep interval between record lookups. The result is varying usage of idle states.
Results: It can be difficult to see any differences in the overall timing graph, but a graph of differences is revealing. teo outperforms rjw in the longer intervals region of the test, at the cost of more power.
Details: (power and idle stats; times): http://smythies.com/~doug/linux/idle/teo-util2/ebizzy/perf/ http://smythies.com/~doug/linux/idle/teo-util2/ebizzy/ebizzy-128-perf.png http://smythies.com/~doug/linux/idle/teo-util2/ebizzy/ebizzy-128-perf-diffs.png
Test 4: 2 X 2 pair token passing. Dwell test. Fast:
Purpose: Dwell under one set of conditions. Observe noise and/or any bi-stability.
Results (reference time is menu): rjw: 3.0723 usecs/loop average. +3.15% teo: 2.9917 usecs/loop average. +0.44% menu: 2.97845 usecs/loop average. Reference ladder: 4.077375 usecs/loop average. +36.9%
Powers are all similar, with ladder a bit lower.
Details: (power and idle stats; times): http://smythies.com/~doug/linux/idle/teo-util2/many-0-400000000-2/perf/ http://smythies.com/~doug/linux/idle/teo-util2/many-0-400000000-2/times.txt
Test 5: 2 X 2 pair token passing. Dwell test. Medium:
Purpose: Dwell under one set of conditions. Observe noise and/or any bi-stability.
Results (reference time is menu): rjw: 11.3406 usecs/loop average. -0.69% teo: 11.36765 usecs/loop average. -0.45% menu: 11.41905 usecs/loop average. reference ladder: 11.9535 usecs/loop average. +4.68%
Powers are all similar.
Details: http://smythies.com/~doug/linux/idle/teo-util2/many-3000-100000000-2/perf/ http://smythies.com/~doug/linux/idle/teo-util2/many-3000-100000000-2/times.txt
Test 6: 2 X 2 pair token passing. Dwell test. Slow:
Purpose: Dwell under one set of conditions. Observe noise and/or any bi-stability.
Results (reference time is menu): rjw: 2591.70 usecs/loop average. +0.26% teo: 2566.34 usecs/loop average. -0.72% menu: 2585.00 usecs/loop average. reference ladder: 2635.36 usecs/loop average. +1.95%
Powers are all similar, with ladder a bit lower. Due to the strong temperature to power use curve, a much longer dwell test would need to be run to be sure to get to steady state power usage.
Details: http://smythies.com/~doug/linux/idle/teo-util2/many-1000000-342000-2/perf/ http://smythies.com/~doug/linux/idle/teo-util2/many-1000000-342000-2/times.txt
Test 7: 500 low load threads.
Purpose: This test has given interesting results in the past.
500 threads at approximately 10 hertz work/sleep frequency and about 0.0163 load per thread, 8.15 total. CPUs about 32% idle.
Results: rjw executed 0.01% faster than teo. rjw used 5% less energy than teo.
Details: http://smythies.com/~doug/linux/idle/teo-util2/waiter/perf/ http://smythies.com/~doug/linux/idle/teo-util2/waiter/times.txt
Conclusions: Overall, I am not seeing a compelling reason to proceed with this patch set.
... Doug
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |