| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
The new performance domain flag EM_PERF_DOMAIN_SKIP_INEFFICIENCIES allows
to not take into account inefficient states when estimating energy
consumption. This intends to let the Energy Model know that CPUFreq itself
will skip inefficiencies and such states don't need to be part of the
estimation anymore.
Signed-off-by: Vincent Donnefort <vincent.donnefort@arm.com>
Reviewed-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
|
|
Merge the current "milliwatts" option into a "flag" field. This intends to
prepare the extension of this structure for inefficient states support in
the Energy Model.
Signed-off-by: Vincent Donnefort <vincent.donnefort@arm.com>
Reviewed-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
|
|
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. The table can now
be read skipping inefficient performance states (and by extension,
inefficient OPPs).
Signed-off-by: Vincent Donnefort <vincent.donnefort@arm.com>
Reviewed-by: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org>
Reviewed-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
|
|
Fix the kernel-doc comments for the improved Energy Model documentation.
Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
|
|
The Energy Model (EM) provides useful information about device power in
each performance state to other subsystems like: Energy Aware Scheduler
(EAS). The energy calculation in EAS does arithmetic operation based on
the EM em_cpu_energy(). Current implementation of that function uses
em_perf_state::cost as a pre-computed cost coefficient equal to:
cost = power * max_frequency / frequency.
The 'power' is expressed in milli-Watts (or in abstract scale).
There are corner cases when the EAS energy calculation for two Performance
Domains (PDs) return the same value. The EAS compares these values to
choose smaller one. It might happen that this values are equal due to
rounding error. In such scenario, we need better resolution, e.g. 1000
times better. To provide this possibility increase the resolution in the
em_perf_state::cost for 64-bit architectures. The cost of increasing
resolution on 32-bit is pretty high (64-bit division) and is not justified
since there are no new 32bit big.LITTLE EAS systems expected which would
benefit from this higher resolution.
This patch allows to avoid the rounding to milli-Watt errors, which might
occur in EAS energy estimation for each PD. The rounding error is common
for small tasks which have small utilization value.
There are two places in the code where it makes a difference:
1. In the find_energy_efficient_cpu() where we are searching for
best_delta. We might suffer there when two PDs return the same result,
like in the example below.
Scenario:
Low utilized system e.g. ~200 sum_util for PD0 and ~220 for PD1. There
are quite a few small tasks ~10-15 util. These tasks would suffer for
the rounding error. These utilization values are typical when running games
on Android. One of our partners has reported 5..10mA less battery drain
when running with increased resolution.
Some details:
We have two PDs: PD0 (big) and PD1 (little)
Let's compare w/o patch set ('old') and w/ patch set ('new')
We are comparing energy w/ task and w/o task placed in the PDs
a) 'old' w/o patch set, PD0
task_util = 13
cost = 480
sum_util_w/o_task = 215
sum_util_w_task = 228
scale_cpu = 1024
energy_w/o_task = 480 * 215 / 1024 = 100.78 => 100
energy_w_task = 480 * 228 / 1024 = 106.87 => 106
energy_diff = 106 - 100 = 6
(this is equal to 'old' PD1's energy_diff in 'c)')
b) 'new' w/ patch set, PD0
task_util = 13
cost = 480 * 1000 = 480000
sum_util_w/o_task = 215
sum_util_w_task = 228
energy_w/o_task = 480000 * 215 / 1024 = 100781
energy_w_task = 480000 * 228 / 1024 = 106875
energy_diff = 106875 - 100781 = 6094
(this is not equal to 'new' PD1's energy_diff in 'd)')
c) 'old' w/o patch set, PD1
task_util = 13
cost = 160
sum_util_w/o_task = 283
sum_util_w_task = 293
scale_cpu = 355
energy_w/o_task = 160 * 283 / 355 = 127.55 => 127
energy_w_task = 160 * 296 / 355 = 133.41 => 133
energy_diff = 133 - 127 = 6
(this is equal to 'old' PD0's energy_diff in 'a)')
d) 'new' w/ patch set, PD1
task_util = 13
cost = 160 * 1000 = 160000
sum_util_w/o_task = 283
sum_util_w_task = 293
scale_cpu = 355
energy_w/o_task = 160000 * 283 / 355 = 127549
energy_w_task = 160000 * 296 / 355 = 133408
energy_diff = 133408 - 127549 = 5859
(this is not equal to 'new' PD0's energy_diff in 'b)')
2. Difference in the 6% energy margin filter at the end of
find_energy_efficient_cpu(). With this patch the margin comparison also
has better resolution, so it's possible to have better task placement
thanks to that.
Fixes: 27871f7a8a341ef ("PM: Introduce an Energy Model management framework")
Reported-by: CCJ Yeh <CCj.Yeh@mediatek.com>
Reviewed-by: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
|
|
Energy Aware Scheduling (EAS) needs to predict the decisions made by
SchedUtil. The map_util_freq() exists to do that.
There are corner cases where the max allowed frequency might be reduced
(due to thermal). SchedUtil as a CPUFreq governor, is aware of that
but EAS is not. This patch aims to address it.
SchedUtil stores the maximum allowed frequency in
'sugov_policy::next_freq' field. EAS has to predict that value, which is
the real used frequency. That value is made after a call to
cpufreq_driver_resolve_freq() which clamps to the CPUFreq policy limits.
In the existing code EAS is not able to predict that real frequency.
This leads to energy estimation errors.
To avoid wrong energy estimation in EAS (due to frequency miss prediction)
make sure that the step which calculates Performance Domain frequency,
is also aware of the allowed CPU capacity.
Furthermore, modify map_util_freq() to not extend the frequency value.
Instead, use map_util_perf() to extend the util value in both places:
SchedUtil and EAS, but for EAS clamp it to max allowed CPU capacity.
In the end, we achieve the same desirable behavior for both subsystems
and alignment in regards to the real CPU frequency.
Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Acked-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> (For the schedutil part)
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210614191238.23224-1-lukasz.luba@arm.com
|
|
When the sum of the utilization of CPUs in a power domain is zero,
return the energy as 0 without doing any computations.
Acked-by: Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Pavankumar Kondeti <pkondeti@codeaurora.org>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
|
|
The Energy Model supports power values expressed in milli-Watts or in an
'abstract scale'. Update the related comments is the code to reflect that
state.
Reviewed-by: Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
|
|
There are different platforms and devices which might use different scale
for the power values. Kernel sub-systems might need to check if all
Energy Model (EM) devices are using the same scale. Address that issue and
store the information inside EM for each device. Thanks to that they can
be easily compared and proper action triggered.
Suggested-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
|
|
Energy Model framework now supports other devices than CPUs. Refactor some
of the functions in order to prevent wrong usage. The old function
em_pd_energy has to generic name. It must not be used without proper
cpumask pointer, which is possible only for CPU devices. Thus, rename it
and add proper description to warn of potential wrong usage for other
devices.
Acked-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
Acked-by: Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
|
|
Remove old function em_register_perf_domain which is no longer needed.
There is em_dev_register_perf_domain that covers old use cases and new as
well.
Acked-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
Acked-by: Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
|
|
Add support for other devices than CPUs. The registration function
does not require a valid cpumask pointer and is ready to handle new
devices. Some of the internal structures has been reorganized in order to
keep consistent view (like removing per_cpu pd pointers).
Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
|
|
The Energy Model framework is going to support devices other that CPUs. In
order to make this happen change the callback function and add pointer to
a device as an argument.
Update the related users to use new function and new callback from the
Energy Model.
Acked-by: Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>
Acked-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
|
|
Add now function in the Energy Model framework which is going to support
new devices. This function will help in transition and make it smoother.
For now it still checks if the cpumask is a valid pointer, which will be
removed later when the new structures and infrastructure will be ready.
Acked-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
Acked-by: Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
|
|
The Energy Model uses concept of performance domain and capacity states in
order to calculate power used by CPUs. Change naming convention from
capacity to performance state would enable wider usage in future, e.g.
upcoming support for other devices other than CPUs.
Acked-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
Acked-by: Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
|
|
The current codebase makes use of the zero-length array language
extension to the C90 standard, but the preferred mechanism to declare
variable-length types such as these ones is a flexible array member[1][2],
introduced in C99:
struct foo {
int stuff;
struct boo array[];
};
By making use of the mechanism above, we will get a compiler warning
in case the flexible array does not occur last in the structure, which
will help us prevent some kind of undefined behavior bugs from being
inadvertently introduced[3] to the codebase from now on.
Also, notice that, dynamic memory allocations won't be affected by
this change:
"Flexible array members have incomplete type, and so the sizeof operator
may not be applied. As a quirk of the original implementation of
zero-length arrays, sizeof evaluates to zero."[1]
This issue was found with the help of Coccinelle.
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
[2] https://github.com/KSPP/linux/issues/21
[3] commit 76497732932f ("cxgb3/l2t: Fix undefined behaviour")
Signed-off-by: Gustavo A. R. Silva <gustavo@embeddedor.com>
|
|
The structs representing capacity states and performance domains of an
Energy Model are currently only defined for CONFIG_ENERGY_MODEL=y. That
makes it hard for code outside PM_EM to manipulate those structures
without a lot of ifdefery or stubbed accessors.
So, move the declaration of the two structs outside of the
CONFIG_ENERGY_MODEL ifdef. The client code (e.g. EAS or thermal) always
checks the return of em_cpu_get() before using it, so the exising code
is still safe to use as-is.
Reported-by: kbuild test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20191030151451.7961-3-qperret@google.com
|
|
The 'struct sched_domain *sd' parameter to arch_scale_cpu_capacity() is
unused since commit:
765d0af19f5f ("sched/topology: Remove the ::smt_gain field from 'struct sched_domain'")
Remove it.
Signed-off-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Reviewed-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org
Cc: linux@armlinux.org.uk
Cc: quentin.perret@arm.com
Cc: rafael@kernel.org
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/1560783617-5827-1-git-send-email-vincent.guittot@linaro.org
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
|
|
Several subsystems in the kernel (task scheduler and/or thermal at the
time of writing) can benefit from knowing about the energy consumed by
CPUs. Yet, this information can come from different sources (DT or
firmware for example), in different formats, hence making it hard to
exploit without a standard API.
As an attempt to address this, introduce a centralized Energy Model
(EM) management framework which aggregates the power values provided
by drivers into a table for each performance domain in the system. The
power cost tables are made available to interested clients (e.g. task
scheduler or thermal) via platform-agnostic APIs. The overall design
is represented by the diagram below (focused on Arm-related drivers as
an example, but applicable to any architecture):
+---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+
| Thermal (IPA) | | Scheduler (EAS) | | Other |
+---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+
| | em_pd_energy() |
| | em_cpu_get() |
+-----------+ | +--------+
| | |
v v v
+---------------------+
| |
| Energy Model |
| |
| Framework |
| |
+---------------------+
^ ^ ^
| | | em_register_perf_domain()
+----------+ | +---------+
| | |
+---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+
| cpufreq-dt | | arm_scmi | | Other |
+---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+
^ ^ ^
| | |
+--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+
| Device Tree | | Firmware | | ? |
+--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+
Drivers (typically, but not limited to, CPUFreq drivers) can register
data in the EM framework using the em_register_perf_domain() API. The
calling driver must provide a callback function with a standardized
signature that will be used by the EM framework to build the power
cost tables of the performance domain. This design should offer a lot of
flexibility to calling drivers which are free of reading information
from any location and to use any technique to compute power costs.
Moreover, the capacity states registered by drivers in the EM framework
are not required to match real performance states of the target. This
is particularly important on targets where the performance states are
not known by the OS.
The power cost coefficients managed by the EM framework are specified in
milli-watts. Although the two potential users of those coefficients (IPA
and EAS) only need relative correctness, IPA specifically needs to
compare the power of CPUs with the power of other components (GPUs, for
example), which are still expressed in absolute terms in their
respective subsystems. Hence, specifying the power of CPUs in
milli-watts should help transitioning IPA to using the EM framework
without introducing new problems by keeping units comparable across
sub-systems.
On the longer term, the EM of other devices than CPUs could also be
managed by the EM framework, which would enable to remove the absolute
unit. However, this is not absolutely required as a first step, so this
extension of the EM framework is left for later.
On the client side, the EM framework offers APIs to access the power
cost tables of a CPU (em_cpu_get()), and to estimate the energy
consumed by the CPUs of a performance domain (em_pd_energy()). Clients
such as the task scheduler can then use these APIs to access the shared
data structures holding the Energy Model of CPUs.
Signed-off-by: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: adharmap@codeaurora.org
Cc: chris.redpath@arm.com
Cc: currojerez@riseup.net
Cc: dietmar.eggemann@arm.com
Cc: edubezval@gmail.com
Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org
Cc: javi.merino@kernel.org
Cc: joel@joelfernandes.org
Cc: juri.lelli@redhat.com
Cc: morten.rasmussen@arm.com
Cc: patrick.bellasi@arm.com
Cc: pkondeti@codeaurora.org
Cc: skannan@codeaurora.org
Cc: smuckle@google.com
Cc: srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com
Cc: thara.gopinath@linaro.org
Cc: tkjos@google.com
Cc: valentin.schneider@arm.com
Cc: vincent.guittot@linaro.org
Cc: viresh.kumar@linaro.org
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181203095628.11858-4-quentin.perret@arm.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
|
