On 06/29/2016 09:06 AM, 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.

Fix this by using a better approximation for division by 1000.

Reported-by: Anton Blanchard <an...@samba.org>
Bisected-by: Shilpasri G Bhat <shilpa.b...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Suggested-by David Laight <david.lai...@aculab.com>
Signed-off-by: Shreyas B. Prabhu <shre...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

[Cc'ed Nicolas Pitre]

---
Changes in v3
=============
  - Using approximation suggested by David

Changes in v2
=============
  - Fixing it in the cpuidle core code instead of driver code.

  drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c | 11 +++--------
  drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.h | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++
  2 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c
index a4d0059..e9a7f74 100644
--- a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c
+++ b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c
@@ -174,7 +174,6 @@ int cpuidle_enter_state(struct cpuidle_device *dev, struct 
cpuidle_driver *drv,
        struct cpuidle_state *target_state = &drv->states[index];
        bool broadcast = !!(target_state->flags & CPUIDLE_FLAG_TIMER_STOP);
        u64 time_start, time_end;
-       s64 diff;

        /*
         * Tell the time framework to switch to a broadcast timer because our
@@ -218,14 +217,10 @@ int cpuidle_enter_state(struct cpuidle_device *dev, 
struct cpuidle_driver *drv,
                local_irq_enable();

        /*
-        * local_clock() returns the time in nanosecond, let's shift
-        * by 10 (divide by 1024) to have microsecond based time.
+        * local_clock() returns the time in nanosecond, convert it to
+        * microsecond based time.
         */
-       diff = (time_end - time_start) >> 10;
-       if (diff > INT_MAX)
-               diff = INT_MAX;
-
-       dev->last_residency = (int) diff;
+       dev->last_residency = convert_nsec_to_usec(time_end - time_start);

        if (entered_state >= 0) {
                /* Update cpuidle counters */
diff --git a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.h b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.h
index f87f399..c8ea5ad 100644
--- a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.h
+++ b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.h
@@ -68,4 +68,27 @@ static inline void cpuidle_coupled_unregister_device(struct 
cpuidle_device *dev)
  }
  #endif

+/*
+ * Used for calculating last_residency in usec. Optimized for case
+ * where last_residency in nsecs is < INT_MAX/2 by using faster
+ * approximation. Approximated value has less than 1% error.
+ */
+static inline int convert_nsec_to_usec(u64 nsec)
+{
+       if (likely(nsec < INT_MAX / 2)) {

UINT_MAX ?

+               int usec = (int)nsec;
+
+               usec += usec >> 5;
+               usec = usec >> 10;
+               return usec;
+       } else {
+               u64 usec = div_u64(nsec, 1000);
+
+               if (usec > INT_MAX)
+                       usec = INT_MAX;
+               return (int)usec;
+       }
+}



--
 <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog

_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev

Reply via email to