On 06/23/2016 05:18 AM, Balbir Singh wrote: > > > On 23/06/16 05:36, Shreyas B. Prabhu wrote: >> Snooze is a poll idle state in powernv and pseries platforms. Snooze >> has a timeout so that if a cpu stays in snooze for more than target >> residency of the next available idle state, then it would exit thereby >> giving chance to the cpuidle governor to re-evaluate and >> promote the cpu to a deeper idle state. Therefore whenever snooze exits >> due to this timeout, its last_residency will be target_residency of next >> deeper state. >> >> commit e93e59ce5b85 ("cpuidle: Replace ktime_get() with local_clock()") >> changed the math around last_residency calculation. Specifically, while >> converting last_residency value from nanoseconds to microseconds it does >> right shift by 10. Due to this, in snooze timeout exit scenarios >> last_residency calculated is roughly 2.3% less than target_residency of >> next available state. This pattern is picked up get_typical_interval() >> in the menu governor and therefore expected_interval in menu_select() is >> frequently less than the target_residency of any state but snooze. >> >> Due to this we are entering snooze at a higher rate, thereby affecting >> the single thread performance. >> Since the math around last_residency is not meant to be precise, fix this >> issue setting snooze timeout to 105% of target_residency of next >> available idle state. >> >> This also adds comment around why snooze timeout is necessary. >> >> Reported-by: Anton Blanchard <an...@samba.org> >> Signed-off-by: Shreyas B. Prabhu <shre...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> >> --- >> drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-powernv.c | 14 ++++++++++++++ >> drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-pseries.c | 13 +++++++++++++ >> 2 files changed, 27 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-powernv.c >> b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-powernv.c >> index e12dc30..5835491 100644 >> --- a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-powernv.c >> +++ b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-powernv.c >> @@ -268,10 +268,24 @@ static int powernv_idle_probe(void) >> cpuidle_state_table = powernv_states; >> /* Device tree can indicate more idle states */ >> max_idle_state = powernv_add_idle_states(); >> + >> + /* >> + * Staying in snooze for a long period can degrade the >> + * perfomance of the sibling cpus. Set timeout for snooze such >> + * that if the cpu stays in snooze longer than target residency >> + * of the next available idle state then exit from snooze. This >> + * gives a chance to the cpuidle governor to re-evaluate and >> + * promote it to deeper idle states. >> + */ >> if (max_idle_state > 1) { >> snooze_timeout_en = true; >> snooze_timeout = powernv_states[1].target_residency * >> tb_ticks_per_usec; >> + /* >> + * Give a 5% margin since target residency related math >> + * is not precise in cpuidle core. >> + */ > > Is this due to the microsecond conversion mentioned above? It would be nice to > have it in the comment. Does > > (powernv_states[1].target_residency + tb_ticks_per_usec) / tb_ticks_per_usec > solve > your rounding issues, assuming the issue is really rounding or maybe it is due > to the shift by 10, could you please elaborate on what related math is not > precise? That would explain to me why I missed understanding your changes. > >> + snooze_timeout += snooze_timeout / 20; > > For now 5% is sufficient, but do you want to check to assert to check if > > snooze_timeout (in microseconds) / tb_ticks_per_usec > > powernv_states[i].target_residency? >
This is not a rounding issue. As I mentioned in the commit message, this is because of the last_residency calculation in cpuidle.c. To elaborate, last residency calculation is done in the following way after commit e93e59ce5b85 ("cpuidle: Replace ktime_get() with local_clock()") - cpuidle_enter_state() { [...] time_start = local_clock(); [enter idle state] time_end = local_clock(); /* * local_clock() returns the time in nanosecond, let's shift * by 10 (divide by 1024) to have microsecond based time. */ diff = (time_end - time_start) >> 10; [...] dev->last_residency = (int) diff; } Because of >>10 as opposed to /1000, last_residency is lesser by 2.3% In snooze timeout exit scenarios because of this, last_residency calculated is 2.3% less than target_residency of next available state. This affects get_typical_interval() in the menu governor and therefore expected_interval in menu_select() is frequently less than the target_residency of any state but snooze. I'll expand the comments as you suggested. Thanks, Shreyas _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev