OpenCloudOS-Kernel/drivers/cpuidle/governors/teo.c

490 lines
15 KiB
C
Raw Permalink Normal View History

cpuidle: New timer events oriented governor for tickless systems The venerable menu governor does some things that are quite questionable in my view. First, it includes timer wakeups in the pattern detection data and mixes them up with wakeups from other sources which in some cases causes it to expect what essentially would be a timer wakeup in a time frame in which no timer wakeups are possible (because it knows the time until the next timer event and that is later than the expected wakeup time). Second, it uses the extra exit latency limit based on the predicted idle duration and depending on the number of tasks waiting on I/O, even though those tasks may run on a different CPU when they are woken up. Moreover, the time ranges used by it for the sleep length correction factors depend on whether or not there are tasks waiting on I/O, which again doesn't imply anything in particular, and they are not correlated to the list of available idle states in any way whatever. Also, the pattern detection code in menu may end up considering values that are too large to matter at all, in which cases running it is a waste of time. A major rework of the menu governor would be required to address these issues and the performance of at least some workloads (tuned specifically to the current behavior of the menu governor) is likely to suffer from that. It is thus better to introduce an entirely new governor without them and let everybody use the governor that works better with their actual workloads. The new governor introduced here, the timer events oriented (TEO) governor, uses the same basic strategy as menu: it always tries to find the deepest idle state that can be used in the given conditions. However, it applies a different approach to that problem. First, it doesn't use "correction factors" for the time till the closest timer, but instead it tries to correlate the measured idle duration values with the available idle states and use that information to pick up the idle state that is most likely to "match" the upcoming CPU idle interval. Second, it doesn't take the number of "I/O waiters" into account at all and the pattern detection code in it avoids taking timer wakeups into account. It also only uses idle duration values less than the current time till the closest timer (with the tick excluded) for that purpose. Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> Acked-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
2019-01-04 19:30:47 +08:00
// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
/*
* Timer events oriented CPU idle governor
*
* Copyright (C) 2018 Intel Corporation
* Author: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
*
* The idea of this governor is based on the observation that on many systems
* timer events are two or more orders of magnitude more frequent than any
* other interrupts, so they are likely to be the most significant source of CPU
* wakeups from idle states. Moreover, information about what happened in the
* (relatively recent) past can be used to estimate whether or not the deepest
* idle state with target residency within the time to the closest timer is
* likely to be suitable for the upcoming idle time of the CPU and, if not, then
* which of the shallower idle states to choose.
*
* Of course, non-timer wakeup sources are more important in some use cases and
* they can be covered by taking a few most recent idle time intervals of the
* CPU into account. However, even in that case it is not necessary to consider
* idle duration values greater than the time till the closest timer, as the
* patterns that they may belong to produce average values close enough to
* the time till the closest timer (sleep length) anyway.
*
* Thus this governor estimates whether or not the upcoming idle time of the CPU
* is likely to be significantly shorter than the sleep length and selects an
* idle state for it in accordance with that, as follows:
*
* - Find an idle state on the basis of the sleep length and state statistics
* collected over time:
*
* o Find the deepest idle state whose target residency is less than or equal
* to the sleep length.
*
* o Select it if it matched both the sleep length and the observed idle
* duration in the past more often than it matched the sleep length alone
* (i.e. the observed idle duration was significantly shorter than the sleep
* length matched by it).
*
* o Otherwise, select the shallower state with the greatest matched "early"
* wakeups metric.
*
* - If the majority of the most recent idle duration values are below the
* target residency of the idle state selected so far, use those values to
* compute the new expected idle duration and find an idle state matching it
* (which has to be shallower than the one selected so far).
*/
#include <linux/cpuidle.h>
#include <linux/jiffies.h>
#include <linux/kernel.h>
#include <linux/sched/clock.h>
#include <linux/tick.h>
/*
* The PULSE value is added to metrics when they grow and the DECAY_SHIFT value
* is used for decreasing metrics on a regular basis.
*/
#define PULSE 1024
#define DECAY_SHIFT 3
/*
* Number of the most recent idle duration values to take into consideration for
* the detection of wakeup patterns.
*/
#define INTERVALS 8
/**
* struct teo_idle_state - Idle state data used by the TEO cpuidle governor.
* @early_hits: "Early" CPU wakeups "matching" this state.
* @hits: "On time" CPU wakeups "matching" this state.
* @misses: CPU wakeups "missing" this state.
*
* A CPU wakeup is "matched" by a given idle state if the idle duration measured
* after the wakeup is between the target residency of that state and the target
* residency of the next one (or if this is the deepest available idle state, it
* "matches" a CPU wakeup when the measured idle duration is at least equal to
* its target residency).
*
* Also, from the TEO governor perspective, a CPU wakeup from idle is "early" if
* it occurs significantly earlier than the closest expected timer event (that
* is, early enough to match an idle state shallower than the one matching the
* time till the closest timer event). Otherwise, the wakeup is "on time", or
* it is a "hit".
*
* A "miss" occurs when the given state doesn't match the wakeup, but it matches
* the time till the closest timer event used for idle state selection.
*/
struct teo_idle_state {
unsigned int early_hits;
unsigned int hits;
unsigned int misses;
};
/**
* struct teo_cpu - CPU data used by the TEO cpuidle governor.
* @time_span_ns: Time between idle state selection and post-wakeup update.
* @sleep_length_ns: Time till the closest timer event (at the selection time).
* @states: Idle states data corresponding to this CPU.
* @interval_idx: Index of the most recent saved idle interval.
* @intervals: Saved idle duration values.
*/
struct teo_cpu {
u64 time_span_ns;
u64 sleep_length_ns;
struct teo_idle_state states[CPUIDLE_STATE_MAX];
int interval_idx;
unsigned int intervals[INTERVALS];
};
static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct teo_cpu, teo_cpus);
/**
* teo_update - Update CPU data after wakeup.
* @drv: cpuidle driver containing state data.
* @dev: Target CPU.
*/
static void teo_update(struct cpuidle_driver *drv, struct cpuidle_device *dev)
{
struct teo_cpu *cpu_data = per_cpu_ptr(&teo_cpus, dev->cpu);
unsigned int sleep_length_us = ktime_to_us(cpu_data->sleep_length_ns);
int i, idx_hit = -1, idx_timer = -1;
unsigned int measured_us;
if (cpu_data->time_span_ns >= cpu_data->sleep_length_ns) {
/*
* One of the safety nets has triggered or the wakeup was close
* enough to the closest timer event expected at the idle state
* selection time to be discarded.
cpuidle: New timer events oriented governor for tickless systems The venerable menu governor does some things that are quite questionable in my view. First, it includes timer wakeups in the pattern detection data and mixes them up with wakeups from other sources which in some cases causes it to expect what essentially would be a timer wakeup in a time frame in which no timer wakeups are possible (because it knows the time until the next timer event and that is later than the expected wakeup time). Second, it uses the extra exit latency limit based on the predicted idle duration and depending on the number of tasks waiting on I/O, even though those tasks may run on a different CPU when they are woken up. Moreover, the time ranges used by it for the sleep length correction factors depend on whether or not there are tasks waiting on I/O, which again doesn't imply anything in particular, and they are not correlated to the list of available idle states in any way whatever. Also, the pattern detection code in menu may end up considering values that are too large to matter at all, in which cases running it is a waste of time. A major rework of the menu governor would be required to address these issues and the performance of at least some workloads (tuned specifically to the current behavior of the menu governor) is likely to suffer from that. It is thus better to introduce an entirely new governor without them and let everybody use the governor that works better with their actual workloads. The new governor introduced here, the timer events oriented (TEO) governor, uses the same basic strategy as menu: it always tries to find the deepest idle state that can be used in the given conditions. However, it applies a different approach to that problem. First, it doesn't use "correction factors" for the time till the closest timer, but instead it tries to correlate the measured idle duration values with the available idle states and use that information to pick up the idle state that is most likely to "match" the upcoming CPU idle interval. Second, it doesn't take the number of "I/O waiters" into account at all and the pattern detection code in it avoids taking timer wakeups into account. It also only uses idle duration values less than the current time till the closest timer (with the tick excluded) for that purpose. Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> Acked-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
2019-01-04 19:30:47 +08:00
*/
measured_us = UINT_MAX;
cpuidle: New timer events oriented governor for tickless systems The venerable menu governor does some things that are quite questionable in my view. First, it includes timer wakeups in the pattern detection data and mixes them up with wakeups from other sources which in some cases causes it to expect what essentially would be a timer wakeup in a time frame in which no timer wakeups are possible (because it knows the time until the next timer event and that is later than the expected wakeup time). Second, it uses the extra exit latency limit based on the predicted idle duration and depending on the number of tasks waiting on I/O, even though those tasks may run on a different CPU when they are woken up. Moreover, the time ranges used by it for the sleep length correction factors depend on whether or not there are tasks waiting on I/O, which again doesn't imply anything in particular, and they are not correlated to the list of available idle states in any way whatever. Also, the pattern detection code in menu may end up considering values that are too large to matter at all, in which cases running it is a waste of time. A major rework of the menu governor would be required to address these issues and the performance of at least some workloads (tuned specifically to the current behavior of the menu governor) is likely to suffer from that. It is thus better to introduce an entirely new governor without them and let everybody use the governor that works better with their actual workloads. The new governor introduced here, the timer events oriented (TEO) governor, uses the same basic strategy as menu: it always tries to find the deepest idle state that can be used in the given conditions. However, it applies a different approach to that problem. First, it doesn't use "correction factors" for the time till the closest timer, but instead it tries to correlate the measured idle duration values with the available idle states and use that information to pick up the idle state that is most likely to "match" the upcoming CPU idle interval. Second, it doesn't take the number of "I/O waiters" into account at all and the pattern detection code in it avoids taking timer wakeups into account. It also only uses idle duration values less than the current time till the closest timer (with the tick excluded) for that purpose. Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> Acked-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
2019-01-04 19:30:47 +08:00
} else {
unsigned int lat;
lat = drv->states[dev->last_state_idx].exit_latency;
cpuidle: New timer events oriented governor for tickless systems The venerable menu governor does some things that are quite questionable in my view. First, it includes timer wakeups in the pattern detection data and mixes them up with wakeups from other sources which in some cases causes it to expect what essentially would be a timer wakeup in a time frame in which no timer wakeups are possible (because it knows the time until the next timer event and that is later than the expected wakeup time). Second, it uses the extra exit latency limit based on the predicted idle duration and depending on the number of tasks waiting on I/O, even though those tasks may run on a different CPU when they are woken up. Moreover, the time ranges used by it for the sleep length correction factors depend on whether or not there are tasks waiting on I/O, which again doesn't imply anything in particular, and they are not correlated to the list of available idle states in any way whatever. Also, the pattern detection code in menu may end up considering values that are too large to matter at all, in which cases running it is a waste of time. A major rework of the menu governor would be required to address these issues and the performance of at least some workloads (tuned specifically to the current behavior of the menu governor) is likely to suffer from that. It is thus better to introduce an entirely new governor without them and let everybody use the governor that works better with their actual workloads. The new governor introduced here, the timer events oriented (TEO) governor, uses the same basic strategy as menu: it always tries to find the deepest idle state that can be used in the given conditions. However, it applies a different approach to that problem. First, it doesn't use "correction factors" for the time till the closest timer, but instead it tries to correlate the measured idle duration values with the available idle states and use that information to pick up the idle state that is most likely to "match" the upcoming CPU idle interval. Second, it doesn't take the number of "I/O waiters" into account at all and the pattern detection code in it avoids taking timer wakeups into account. It also only uses idle duration values less than the current time till the closest timer (with the tick excluded) for that purpose. Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> Acked-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
2019-01-04 19:30:47 +08:00
measured_us = ktime_to_us(cpu_data->time_span_ns);
/*
* The delay between the wakeup and the first instruction
* executed by the CPU is not likely to be worst-case every
* time, so take 1/2 of the exit latency as a very rough
* approximation of the average of it.
*/
if (measured_us >= lat)
measured_us -= lat / 2;
else
measured_us /= 2;
}
/*
* Decay the "early hits" metric for all of the states and find the
* states matching the sleep length and the measured idle duration.
*/
for (i = 0; i < drv->state_count; i++) {
unsigned int early_hits = cpu_data->states[i].early_hits;
cpu_data->states[i].early_hits -= early_hits >> DECAY_SHIFT;
if (drv->states[i].target_residency <= sleep_length_us) {
idx_timer = i;
if (drv->states[i].target_residency <= measured_us)
idx_hit = i;
}
}
/*
* Update the "hits" and "misses" data for the state matching the sleep
* length. If it matches the measured idle duration too, this is a hit,
* so increase the "hits" metric for it then. Otherwise, this is a
* miss, so increase the "misses" metric for it. In the latter case
* also increase the "early hits" metric for the state that actually
* matches the measured idle duration.
*/
if (idx_timer >= 0) {
unsigned int hits = cpu_data->states[idx_timer].hits;
unsigned int misses = cpu_data->states[idx_timer].misses;
hits -= hits >> DECAY_SHIFT;
misses -= misses >> DECAY_SHIFT;
if (idx_timer > idx_hit) {
misses += PULSE;
if (idx_hit >= 0)
cpu_data->states[idx_hit].early_hits += PULSE;
} else {
hits += PULSE;
}
cpu_data->states[idx_timer].misses = misses;
cpu_data->states[idx_timer].hits = hits;
}
/*
* Save idle duration values corresponding to non-timer wakeups for
* pattern detection.
*/
cpu_data->intervals[cpu_data->interval_idx++] = measured_us;
if (cpu_data->interval_idx >= INTERVALS)
cpuidle: New timer events oriented governor for tickless systems The venerable menu governor does some things that are quite questionable in my view. First, it includes timer wakeups in the pattern detection data and mixes them up with wakeups from other sources which in some cases causes it to expect what essentially would be a timer wakeup in a time frame in which no timer wakeups are possible (because it knows the time until the next timer event and that is later than the expected wakeup time). Second, it uses the extra exit latency limit based on the predicted idle duration and depending on the number of tasks waiting on I/O, even though those tasks may run on a different CPU when they are woken up. Moreover, the time ranges used by it for the sleep length correction factors depend on whether or not there are tasks waiting on I/O, which again doesn't imply anything in particular, and they are not correlated to the list of available idle states in any way whatever. Also, the pattern detection code in menu may end up considering values that are too large to matter at all, in which cases running it is a waste of time. A major rework of the menu governor would be required to address these issues and the performance of at least some workloads (tuned specifically to the current behavior of the menu governor) is likely to suffer from that. It is thus better to introduce an entirely new governor without them and let everybody use the governor that works better with their actual workloads. The new governor introduced here, the timer events oriented (TEO) governor, uses the same basic strategy as menu: it always tries to find the deepest idle state that can be used in the given conditions. However, it applies a different approach to that problem. First, it doesn't use "correction factors" for the time till the closest timer, but instead it tries to correlate the measured idle duration values with the available idle states and use that information to pick up the idle state that is most likely to "match" the upcoming CPU idle interval. Second, it doesn't take the number of "I/O waiters" into account at all and the pattern detection code in it avoids taking timer wakeups into account. It also only uses idle duration values less than the current time till the closest timer (with the tick excluded) for that purpose. Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> Acked-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
2019-01-04 19:30:47 +08:00
cpu_data->interval_idx = 0;
}
/**
* teo_find_shallower_state - Find shallower idle state matching given duration.
* @drv: cpuidle driver containing state data.
* @dev: Target CPU.
* @state_idx: Index of the capping idle state.
* @duration_us: Idle duration value to match.
*/
static int teo_find_shallower_state(struct cpuidle_driver *drv,
struct cpuidle_device *dev, int state_idx,
unsigned int duration_us)
{
int i;
for (i = state_idx - 1; i >= 0; i--) {
if (drv->states[i].disabled || dev->states_usage[i].disable)
continue;
state_idx = i;
if (drv->states[i].target_residency <= duration_us)
break;
}
return state_idx;
}
/**
* teo_select - Selects the next idle state to enter.
* @drv: cpuidle driver containing state data.
* @dev: Target CPU.
* @stop_tick: Indication on whether or not to stop the scheduler tick.
*/
static int teo_select(struct cpuidle_driver *drv, struct cpuidle_device *dev,
bool *stop_tick)
{
struct teo_cpu *cpu_data = per_cpu_ptr(&teo_cpus, dev->cpu);
int latency_req = cpuidle_governor_latency_req(dev->cpu);
unsigned int duration_us, hits, misses, early_hits;
int max_early_idx, prev_max_early_idx, constraint_idx, idx, i;
cpuidle: New timer events oriented governor for tickless systems The venerable menu governor does some things that are quite questionable in my view. First, it includes timer wakeups in the pattern detection data and mixes them up with wakeups from other sources which in some cases causes it to expect what essentially would be a timer wakeup in a time frame in which no timer wakeups are possible (because it knows the time until the next timer event and that is later than the expected wakeup time). Second, it uses the extra exit latency limit based on the predicted idle duration and depending on the number of tasks waiting on I/O, even though those tasks may run on a different CPU when they are woken up. Moreover, the time ranges used by it for the sleep length correction factors depend on whether or not there are tasks waiting on I/O, which again doesn't imply anything in particular, and they are not correlated to the list of available idle states in any way whatever. Also, the pattern detection code in menu may end up considering values that are too large to matter at all, in which cases running it is a waste of time. A major rework of the menu governor would be required to address these issues and the performance of at least some workloads (tuned specifically to the current behavior of the menu governor) is likely to suffer from that. It is thus better to introduce an entirely new governor without them and let everybody use the governor that works better with their actual workloads. The new governor introduced here, the timer events oriented (TEO) governor, uses the same basic strategy as menu: it always tries to find the deepest idle state that can be used in the given conditions. However, it applies a different approach to that problem. First, it doesn't use "correction factors" for the time till the closest timer, but instead it tries to correlate the measured idle duration values with the available idle states and use that information to pick up the idle state that is most likely to "match" the upcoming CPU idle interval. Second, it doesn't take the number of "I/O waiters" into account at all and the pattern detection code in it avoids taking timer wakeups into account. It also only uses idle duration values less than the current time till the closest timer (with the tick excluded) for that purpose. Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> Acked-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
2019-01-04 19:30:47 +08:00
ktime_t delta_tick;
if (dev->last_state_idx >= 0) {
cpuidle: New timer events oriented governor for tickless systems The venerable menu governor does some things that are quite questionable in my view. First, it includes timer wakeups in the pattern detection data and mixes them up with wakeups from other sources which in some cases causes it to expect what essentially would be a timer wakeup in a time frame in which no timer wakeups are possible (because it knows the time until the next timer event and that is later than the expected wakeup time). Second, it uses the extra exit latency limit based on the predicted idle duration and depending on the number of tasks waiting on I/O, even though those tasks may run on a different CPU when they are woken up. Moreover, the time ranges used by it for the sleep length correction factors depend on whether or not there are tasks waiting on I/O, which again doesn't imply anything in particular, and they are not correlated to the list of available idle states in any way whatever. Also, the pattern detection code in menu may end up considering values that are too large to matter at all, in which cases running it is a waste of time. A major rework of the menu governor would be required to address these issues and the performance of at least some workloads (tuned specifically to the current behavior of the menu governor) is likely to suffer from that. It is thus better to introduce an entirely new governor without them and let everybody use the governor that works better with their actual workloads. The new governor introduced here, the timer events oriented (TEO) governor, uses the same basic strategy as menu: it always tries to find the deepest idle state that can be used in the given conditions. However, it applies a different approach to that problem. First, it doesn't use "correction factors" for the time till the closest timer, but instead it tries to correlate the measured idle duration values with the available idle states and use that information to pick up the idle state that is most likely to "match" the upcoming CPU idle interval. Second, it doesn't take the number of "I/O waiters" into account at all and the pattern detection code in it avoids taking timer wakeups into account. It also only uses idle duration values less than the current time till the closest timer (with the tick excluded) for that purpose. Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> Acked-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
2019-01-04 19:30:47 +08:00
teo_update(drv, dev);
dev->last_state_idx = -1;
cpuidle: New timer events oriented governor for tickless systems The venerable menu governor does some things that are quite questionable in my view. First, it includes timer wakeups in the pattern detection data and mixes them up with wakeups from other sources which in some cases causes it to expect what essentially would be a timer wakeup in a time frame in which no timer wakeups are possible (because it knows the time until the next timer event and that is later than the expected wakeup time). Second, it uses the extra exit latency limit based on the predicted idle duration and depending on the number of tasks waiting on I/O, even though those tasks may run on a different CPU when they are woken up. Moreover, the time ranges used by it for the sleep length correction factors depend on whether or not there are tasks waiting on I/O, which again doesn't imply anything in particular, and they are not correlated to the list of available idle states in any way whatever. Also, the pattern detection code in menu may end up considering values that are too large to matter at all, in which cases running it is a waste of time. A major rework of the menu governor would be required to address these issues and the performance of at least some workloads (tuned specifically to the current behavior of the menu governor) is likely to suffer from that. It is thus better to introduce an entirely new governor without them and let everybody use the governor that works better with their actual workloads. The new governor introduced here, the timer events oriented (TEO) governor, uses the same basic strategy as menu: it always tries to find the deepest idle state that can be used in the given conditions. However, it applies a different approach to that problem. First, it doesn't use "correction factors" for the time till the closest timer, but instead it tries to correlate the measured idle duration values with the available idle states and use that information to pick up the idle state that is most likely to "match" the upcoming CPU idle interval. Second, it doesn't take the number of "I/O waiters" into account at all and the pattern detection code in it avoids taking timer wakeups into account. It also only uses idle duration values less than the current time till the closest timer (with the tick excluded) for that purpose. Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> Acked-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
2019-01-04 19:30:47 +08:00
}
cpu_data->time_span_ns = local_clock();
cpu_data->sleep_length_ns = tick_nohz_get_sleep_length(&delta_tick);
duration_us = ktime_to_us(cpu_data->sleep_length_ns);
hits = 0;
misses = 0;
early_hits = 0;
cpuidle: New timer events oriented governor for tickless systems The venerable menu governor does some things that are quite questionable in my view. First, it includes timer wakeups in the pattern detection data and mixes them up with wakeups from other sources which in some cases causes it to expect what essentially would be a timer wakeup in a time frame in which no timer wakeups are possible (because it knows the time until the next timer event and that is later than the expected wakeup time). Second, it uses the extra exit latency limit based on the predicted idle duration and depending on the number of tasks waiting on I/O, even though those tasks may run on a different CPU when they are woken up. Moreover, the time ranges used by it for the sleep length correction factors depend on whether or not there are tasks waiting on I/O, which again doesn't imply anything in particular, and they are not correlated to the list of available idle states in any way whatever. Also, the pattern detection code in menu may end up considering values that are too large to matter at all, in which cases running it is a waste of time. A major rework of the menu governor would be required to address these issues and the performance of at least some workloads (tuned specifically to the current behavior of the menu governor) is likely to suffer from that. It is thus better to introduce an entirely new governor without them and let everybody use the governor that works better with their actual workloads. The new governor introduced here, the timer events oriented (TEO) governor, uses the same basic strategy as menu: it always tries to find the deepest idle state that can be used in the given conditions. However, it applies a different approach to that problem. First, it doesn't use "correction factors" for the time till the closest timer, but instead it tries to correlate the measured idle duration values with the available idle states and use that information to pick up the idle state that is most likely to "match" the upcoming CPU idle interval. Second, it doesn't take the number of "I/O waiters" into account at all and the pattern detection code in it avoids taking timer wakeups into account. It also only uses idle duration values less than the current time till the closest timer (with the tick excluded) for that purpose. Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> Acked-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
2019-01-04 19:30:47 +08:00
max_early_idx = -1;
prev_max_early_idx = -1;
constraint_idx = drv->state_count;
cpuidle: New timer events oriented governor for tickless systems The venerable menu governor does some things that are quite questionable in my view. First, it includes timer wakeups in the pattern detection data and mixes them up with wakeups from other sources which in some cases causes it to expect what essentially would be a timer wakeup in a time frame in which no timer wakeups are possible (because it knows the time until the next timer event and that is later than the expected wakeup time). Second, it uses the extra exit latency limit based on the predicted idle duration and depending on the number of tasks waiting on I/O, even though those tasks may run on a different CPU when they are woken up. Moreover, the time ranges used by it for the sleep length correction factors depend on whether or not there are tasks waiting on I/O, which again doesn't imply anything in particular, and they are not correlated to the list of available idle states in any way whatever. Also, the pattern detection code in menu may end up considering values that are too large to matter at all, in which cases running it is a waste of time. A major rework of the menu governor would be required to address these issues and the performance of at least some workloads (tuned specifically to the current behavior of the menu governor) is likely to suffer from that. It is thus better to introduce an entirely new governor without them and let everybody use the governor that works better with their actual workloads. The new governor introduced here, the timer events oriented (TEO) governor, uses the same basic strategy as menu: it always tries to find the deepest idle state that can be used in the given conditions. However, it applies a different approach to that problem. First, it doesn't use "correction factors" for the time till the closest timer, but instead it tries to correlate the measured idle duration values with the available idle states and use that information to pick up the idle state that is most likely to "match" the upcoming CPU idle interval. Second, it doesn't take the number of "I/O waiters" into account at all and the pattern detection code in it avoids taking timer wakeups into account. It also only uses idle duration values less than the current time till the closest timer (with the tick excluded) for that purpose. Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> Acked-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
2019-01-04 19:30:47 +08:00
idx = -1;
for (i = 0; i < drv->state_count; i++) {
struct cpuidle_state *s = &drv->states[i];
struct cpuidle_state_usage *su = &dev->states_usage[i];
if (s->disabled || su->disable) {
/*
* Ignore disabled states with target residencies beyond
* the anticipated idle duration.
cpuidle: New timer events oriented governor for tickless systems The venerable menu governor does some things that are quite questionable in my view. First, it includes timer wakeups in the pattern detection data and mixes them up with wakeups from other sources which in some cases causes it to expect what essentially would be a timer wakeup in a time frame in which no timer wakeups are possible (because it knows the time until the next timer event and that is later than the expected wakeup time). Second, it uses the extra exit latency limit based on the predicted idle duration and depending on the number of tasks waiting on I/O, even though those tasks may run on a different CPU when they are woken up. Moreover, the time ranges used by it for the sleep length correction factors depend on whether or not there are tasks waiting on I/O, which again doesn't imply anything in particular, and they are not correlated to the list of available idle states in any way whatever. Also, the pattern detection code in menu may end up considering values that are too large to matter at all, in which cases running it is a waste of time. A major rework of the menu governor would be required to address these issues and the performance of at least some workloads (tuned specifically to the current behavior of the menu governor) is likely to suffer from that. It is thus better to introduce an entirely new governor without them and let everybody use the governor that works better with their actual workloads. The new governor introduced here, the timer events oriented (TEO) governor, uses the same basic strategy as menu: it always tries to find the deepest idle state that can be used in the given conditions. However, it applies a different approach to that problem. First, it doesn't use "correction factors" for the time till the closest timer, but instead it tries to correlate the measured idle duration values with the available idle states and use that information to pick up the idle state that is most likely to "match" the upcoming CPU idle interval. Second, it doesn't take the number of "I/O waiters" into account at all and the pattern detection code in it avoids taking timer wakeups into account. It also only uses idle duration values less than the current time till the closest timer (with the tick excluded) for that purpose. Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> Acked-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
2019-01-04 19:30:47 +08:00
*/
if (s->target_residency > duration_us)
continue;
/*
* This state is disabled, so the range of idle duration
* values corresponding to it is covered by the current
* candidate state, but still the "hits" and "misses"
* metrics of the disabled state need to be used to
* decide whether or not the state covering the range in
* question is good enough.
*/
hits = cpu_data->states[i].hits;
misses = cpu_data->states[i].misses;
if (early_hits >= cpu_data->states[i].early_hits ||
idx < 0)
continue;
/*
* If the current candidate state has been the one with
* the maximum "early hits" metric so far, the "early
* hits" metric of the disabled state replaces the
* current "early hits" count to avoid selecting a
* deeper state with lower "early hits" metric.
*/
if (max_early_idx == idx) {
early_hits = cpu_data->states[i].early_hits;
continue;
}
/*
* The current candidate state is closer to the disabled
* one than the current maximum "early hits" state, so
* replace the latter with it, but in case the maximum
* "early hits" state index has not been set so far,
* check if the current candidate state is not too
* shallow for that role.
*/
if (!(tick_nohz_tick_stopped() &&
drv->states[idx].target_residency < TICK_USEC)) {
prev_max_early_idx = max_early_idx;
early_hits = cpu_data->states[i].early_hits;
max_early_idx = idx;
}
cpuidle: New timer events oriented governor for tickless systems The venerable menu governor does some things that are quite questionable in my view. First, it includes timer wakeups in the pattern detection data and mixes them up with wakeups from other sources which in some cases causes it to expect what essentially would be a timer wakeup in a time frame in which no timer wakeups are possible (because it knows the time until the next timer event and that is later than the expected wakeup time). Second, it uses the extra exit latency limit based on the predicted idle duration and depending on the number of tasks waiting on I/O, even though those tasks may run on a different CPU when they are woken up. Moreover, the time ranges used by it for the sleep length correction factors depend on whether or not there are tasks waiting on I/O, which again doesn't imply anything in particular, and they are not correlated to the list of available idle states in any way whatever. Also, the pattern detection code in menu may end up considering values that are too large to matter at all, in which cases running it is a waste of time. A major rework of the menu governor would be required to address these issues and the performance of at least some workloads (tuned specifically to the current behavior of the menu governor) is likely to suffer from that. It is thus better to introduce an entirely new governor without them and let everybody use the governor that works better with their actual workloads. The new governor introduced here, the timer events oriented (TEO) governor, uses the same basic strategy as menu: it always tries to find the deepest idle state that can be used in the given conditions. However, it applies a different approach to that problem. First, it doesn't use "correction factors" for the time till the closest timer, but instead it tries to correlate the measured idle duration values with the available idle states and use that information to pick up the idle state that is most likely to "match" the upcoming CPU idle interval. Second, it doesn't take the number of "I/O waiters" into account at all and the pattern detection code in it avoids taking timer wakeups into account. It also only uses idle duration values less than the current time till the closest timer (with the tick excluded) for that purpose. Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> Acked-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
2019-01-04 19:30:47 +08:00
continue;
}
if (idx < 0) {
cpuidle: New timer events oriented governor for tickless systems The venerable menu governor does some things that are quite questionable in my view. First, it includes timer wakeups in the pattern detection data and mixes them up with wakeups from other sources which in some cases causes it to expect what essentially would be a timer wakeup in a time frame in which no timer wakeups are possible (because it knows the time until the next timer event and that is later than the expected wakeup time). Second, it uses the extra exit latency limit based on the predicted idle duration and depending on the number of tasks waiting on I/O, even though those tasks may run on a different CPU when they are woken up. Moreover, the time ranges used by it for the sleep length correction factors depend on whether or not there are tasks waiting on I/O, which again doesn't imply anything in particular, and they are not correlated to the list of available idle states in any way whatever. Also, the pattern detection code in menu may end up considering values that are too large to matter at all, in which cases running it is a waste of time. A major rework of the menu governor would be required to address these issues and the performance of at least some workloads (tuned specifically to the current behavior of the menu governor) is likely to suffer from that. It is thus better to introduce an entirely new governor without them and let everybody use the governor that works better with their actual workloads. The new governor introduced here, the timer events oriented (TEO) governor, uses the same basic strategy as menu: it always tries to find the deepest idle state that can be used in the given conditions. However, it applies a different approach to that problem. First, it doesn't use "correction factors" for the time till the closest timer, but instead it tries to correlate the measured idle duration values with the available idle states and use that information to pick up the idle state that is most likely to "match" the upcoming CPU idle interval. Second, it doesn't take the number of "I/O waiters" into account at all and the pattern detection code in it avoids taking timer wakeups into account. It also only uses idle duration values less than the current time till the closest timer (with the tick excluded) for that purpose. Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> Acked-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
2019-01-04 19:30:47 +08:00
idx = i; /* first enabled state */
hits = cpu_data->states[i].hits;
misses = cpu_data->states[i].misses;
}
cpuidle: New timer events oriented governor for tickless systems The venerable menu governor does some things that are quite questionable in my view. First, it includes timer wakeups in the pattern detection data and mixes them up with wakeups from other sources which in some cases causes it to expect what essentially would be a timer wakeup in a time frame in which no timer wakeups are possible (because it knows the time until the next timer event and that is later than the expected wakeup time). Second, it uses the extra exit latency limit based on the predicted idle duration and depending on the number of tasks waiting on I/O, even though those tasks may run on a different CPU when they are woken up. Moreover, the time ranges used by it for the sleep length correction factors depend on whether or not there are tasks waiting on I/O, which again doesn't imply anything in particular, and they are not correlated to the list of available idle states in any way whatever. Also, the pattern detection code in menu may end up considering values that are too large to matter at all, in which cases running it is a waste of time. A major rework of the menu governor would be required to address these issues and the performance of at least some workloads (tuned specifically to the current behavior of the menu governor) is likely to suffer from that. It is thus better to introduce an entirely new governor without them and let everybody use the governor that works better with their actual workloads. The new governor introduced here, the timer events oriented (TEO) governor, uses the same basic strategy as menu: it always tries to find the deepest idle state that can be used in the given conditions. However, it applies a different approach to that problem. First, it doesn't use "correction factors" for the time till the closest timer, but instead it tries to correlate the measured idle duration values with the available idle states and use that information to pick up the idle state that is most likely to "match" the upcoming CPU idle interval. Second, it doesn't take the number of "I/O waiters" into account at all and the pattern detection code in it avoids taking timer wakeups into account. It also only uses idle duration values less than the current time till the closest timer (with the tick excluded) for that purpose. Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> Acked-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
2019-01-04 19:30:47 +08:00
if (s->target_residency > duration_us)
break;
if (s->exit_latency > latency_req && constraint_idx > i)
constraint_idx = i;
cpuidle: New timer events oriented governor for tickless systems The venerable menu governor does some things that are quite questionable in my view. First, it includes timer wakeups in the pattern detection data and mixes them up with wakeups from other sources which in some cases causes it to expect what essentially would be a timer wakeup in a time frame in which no timer wakeups are possible (because it knows the time until the next timer event and that is later than the expected wakeup time). Second, it uses the extra exit latency limit based on the predicted idle duration and depending on the number of tasks waiting on I/O, even though those tasks may run on a different CPU when they are woken up. Moreover, the time ranges used by it for the sleep length correction factors depend on whether or not there are tasks waiting on I/O, which again doesn't imply anything in particular, and they are not correlated to the list of available idle states in any way whatever. Also, the pattern detection code in menu may end up considering values that are too large to matter at all, in which cases running it is a waste of time. A major rework of the menu governor would be required to address these issues and the performance of at least some workloads (tuned specifically to the current behavior of the menu governor) is likely to suffer from that. It is thus better to introduce an entirely new governor without them and let everybody use the governor that works better with their actual workloads. The new governor introduced here, the timer events oriented (TEO) governor, uses the same basic strategy as menu: it always tries to find the deepest idle state that can be used in the given conditions. However, it applies a different approach to that problem. First, it doesn't use "correction factors" for the time till the closest timer, but instead it tries to correlate the measured idle duration values with the available idle states and use that information to pick up the idle state that is most likely to "match" the upcoming CPU idle interval. Second, it doesn't take the number of "I/O waiters" into account at all and the pattern detection code in it avoids taking timer wakeups into account. It also only uses idle duration values less than the current time till the closest timer (with the tick excluded) for that purpose. Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> Acked-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
2019-01-04 19:30:47 +08:00
idx = i;
hits = cpu_data->states[i].hits;
misses = cpu_data->states[i].misses;
cpuidle: New timer events oriented governor for tickless systems The venerable menu governor does some things that are quite questionable in my view. First, it includes timer wakeups in the pattern detection data and mixes them up with wakeups from other sources which in some cases causes it to expect what essentially would be a timer wakeup in a time frame in which no timer wakeups are possible (because it knows the time until the next timer event and that is later than the expected wakeup time). Second, it uses the extra exit latency limit based on the predicted idle duration and depending on the number of tasks waiting on I/O, even though those tasks may run on a different CPU when they are woken up. Moreover, the time ranges used by it for the sleep length correction factors depend on whether or not there are tasks waiting on I/O, which again doesn't imply anything in particular, and they are not correlated to the list of available idle states in any way whatever. Also, the pattern detection code in menu may end up considering values that are too large to matter at all, in which cases running it is a waste of time. A major rework of the menu governor would be required to address these issues and the performance of at least some workloads (tuned specifically to the current behavior of the menu governor) is likely to suffer from that. It is thus better to introduce an entirely new governor without them and let everybody use the governor that works better with their actual workloads. The new governor introduced here, the timer events oriented (TEO) governor, uses the same basic strategy as menu: it always tries to find the deepest idle state that can be used in the given conditions. However, it applies a different approach to that problem. First, it doesn't use "correction factors" for the time till the closest timer, but instead it tries to correlate the measured idle duration values with the available idle states and use that information to pick up the idle state that is most likely to "match" the upcoming CPU idle interval. Second, it doesn't take the number of "I/O waiters" into account at all and the pattern detection code in it avoids taking timer wakeups into account. It also only uses idle duration values less than the current time till the closest timer (with the tick excluded) for that purpose. Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> Acked-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
2019-01-04 19:30:47 +08:00
if (early_hits < cpu_data->states[i].early_hits &&
cpuidle: New timer events oriented governor for tickless systems The venerable menu governor does some things that are quite questionable in my view. First, it includes timer wakeups in the pattern detection data and mixes them up with wakeups from other sources which in some cases causes it to expect what essentially would be a timer wakeup in a time frame in which no timer wakeups are possible (because it knows the time until the next timer event and that is later than the expected wakeup time). Second, it uses the extra exit latency limit based on the predicted idle duration and depending on the number of tasks waiting on I/O, even though those tasks may run on a different CPU when they are woken up. Moreover, the time ranges used by it for the sleep length correction factors depend on whether or not there are tasks waiting on I/O, which again doesn't imply anything in particular, and they are not correlated to the list of available idle states in any way whatever. Also, the pattern detection code in menu may end up considering values that are too large to matter at all, in which cases running it is a waste of time. A major rework of the menu governor would be required to address these issues and the performance of at least some workloads (tuned specifically to the current behavior of the menu governor) is likely to suffer from that. It is thus better to introduce an entirely new governor without them and let everybody use the governor that works better with their actual workloads. The new governor introduced here, the timer events oriented (TEO) governor, uses the same basic strategy as menu: it always tries to find the deepest idle state that can be used in the given conditions. However, it applies a different approach to that problem. First, it doesn't use "correction factors" for the time till the closest timer, but instead it tries to correlate the measured idle duration values with the available idle states and use that information to pick up the idle state that is most likely to "match" the upcoming CPU idle interval. Second, it doesn't take the number of "I/O waiters" into account at all and the pattern detection code in it avoids taking timer wakeups into account. It also only uses idle duration values less than the current time till the closest timer (with the tick excluded) for that purpose. Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> Acked-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
2019-01-04 19:30:47 +08:00
!(tick_nohz_tick_stopped() &&
drv->states[i].target_residency < TICK_USEC)) {
prev_max_early_idx = max_early_idx;
early_hits = cpu_data->states[i].early_hits;
cpuidle: New timer events oriented governor for tickless systems The venerable menu governor does some things that are quite questionable in my view. First, it includes timer wakeups in the pattern detection data and mixes them up with wakeups from other sources which in some cases causes it to expect what essentially would be a timer wakeup in a time frame in which no timer wakeups are possible (because it knows the time until the next timer event and that is later than the expected wakeup time). Second, it uses the extra exit latency limit based on the predicted idle duration and depending on the number of tasks waiting on I/O, even though those tasks may run on a different CPU when they are woken up. Moreover, the time ranges used by it for the sleep length correction factors depend on whether or not there are tasks waiting on I/O, which again doesn't imply anything in particular, and they are not correlated to the list of available idle states in any way whatever. Also, the pattern detection code in menu may end up considering values that are too large to matter at all, in which cases running it is a waste of time. A major rework of the menu governor would be required to address these issues and the performance of at least some workloads (tuned specifically to the current behavior of the menu governor) is likely to suffer from that. It is thus better to introduce an entirely new governor without them and let everybody use the governor that works better with their actual workloads. The new governor introduced here, the timer events oriented (TEO) governor, uses the same basic strategy as menu: it always tries to find the deepest idle state that can be used in the given conditions. However, it applies a different approach to that problem. First, it doesn't use "correction factors" for the time till the closest timer, but instead it tries to correlate the measured idle duration values with the available idle states and use that information to pick up the idle state that is most likely to "match" the upcoming CPU idle interval. Second, it doesn't take the number of "I/O waiters" into account at all and the pattern detection code in it avoids taking timer wakeups into account. It also only uses idle duration values less than the current time till the closest timer (with the tick excluded) for that purpose. Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> Acked-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
2019-01-04 19:30:47 +08:00
max_early_idx = i;
}
}
/*
* If the "hits" metric of the idle state matching the sleep length is
* greater than its "misses" metric, that is the one to use. Otherwise,
* it is more likely that one of the shallower states will match the
* idle duration observed after wakeup, so take the one with the maximum
* "early hits" metric, but if that cannot be determined, just use the
* state selected so far.
*/
if (hits <= misses) {
/*
* The current candidate state is not suitable, so take the one
* whose "early hits" metric is the maximum for the range of
* shallower states.
*/
if (idx == max_early_idx)
max_early_idx = prev_max_early_idx;
if (max_early_idx >= 0) {
idx = max_early_idx;
duration_us = drv->states[idx].target_residency;
}
cpuidle: New timer events oriented governor for tickless systems The venerable menu governor does some things that are quite questionable in my view. First, it includes timer wakeups in the pattern detection data and mixes them up with wakeups from other sources which in some cases causes it to expect what essentially would be a timer wakeup in a time frame in which no timer wakeups are possible (because it knows the time until the next timer event and that is later than the expected wakeup time). Second, it uses the extra exit latency limit based on the predicted idle duration and depending on the number of tasks waiting on I/O, even though those tasks may run on a different CPU when they are woken up. Moreover, the time ranges used by it for the sleep length correction factors depend on whether or not there are tasks waiting on I/O, which again doesn't imply anything in particular, and they are not correlated to the list of available idle states in any way whatever. Also, the pattern detection code in menu may end up considering values that are too large to matter at all, in which cases running it is a waste of time. A major rework of the menu governor would be required to address these issues and the performance of at least some workloads (tuned specifically to the current behavior of the menu governor) is likely to suffer from that. It is thus better to introduce an entirely new governor without them and let everybody use the governor that works better with their actual workloads. The new governor introduced here, the timer events oriented (TEO) governor, uses the same basic strategy as menu: it always tries to find the deepest idle state that can be used in the given conditions. However, it applies a different approach to that problem. First, it doesn't use "correction factors" for the time till the closest timer, but instead it tries to correlate the measured idle duration values with the available idle states and use that information to pick up the idle state that is most likely to "match" the upcoming CPU idle interval. Second, it doesn't take the number of "I/O waiters" into account at all and the pattern detection code in it avoids taking timer wakeups into account. It also only uses idle duration values less than the current time till the closest timer (with the tick excluded) for that purpose. Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> Acked-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
2019-01-04 19:30:47 +08:00
}
/*
* If there is a latency constraint, it may be necessary to use a
* shallower idle state than the one selected so far.
*/
if (constraint_idx < idx)
idx = constraint_idx;
cpuidle: New timer events oriented governor for tickless systems The venerable menu governor does some things that are quite questionable in my view. First, it includes timer wakeups in the pattern detection data and mixes them up with wakeups from other sources which in some cases causes it to expect what essentially would be a timer wakeup in a time frame in which no timer wakeups are possible (because it knows the time until the next timer event and that is later than the expected wakeup time). Second, it uses the extra exit latency limit based on the predicted idle duration and depending on the number of tasks waiting on I/O, even though those tasks may run on a different CPU when they are woken up. Moreover, the time ranges used by it for the sleep length correction factors depend on whether or not there are tasks waiting on I/O, which again doesn't imply anything in particular, and they are not correlated to the list of available idle states in any way whatever. Also, the pattern detection code in menu may end up considering values that are too large to matter at all, in which cases running it is a waste of time. A major rework of the menu governor would be required to address these issues and the performance of at least some workloads (tuned specifically to the current behavior of the menu governor) is likely to suffer from that. It is thus better to introduce an entirely new governor without them and let everybody use the governor that works better with their actual workloads. The new governor introduced here, the timer events oriented (TEO) governor, uses the same basic strategy as menu: it always tries to find the deepest idle state that can be used in the given conditions. However, it applies a different approach to that problem. First, it doesn't use "correction factors" for the time till the closest timer, but instead it tries to correlate the measured idle duration values with the available idle states and use that information to pick up the idle state that is most likely to "match" the upcoming CPU idle interval. Second, it doesn't take the number of "I/O waiters" into account at all and the pattern detection code in it avoids taking timer wakeups into account. It also only uses idle duration values less than the current time till the closest timer (with the tick excluded) for that purpose. Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> Acked-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
2019-01-04 19:30:47 +08:00
if (idx < 0) {
idx = 0; /* No states enabled. Must use 0. */
} else if (idx > 0) {
unsigned int count = 0;
cpuidle: New timer events oriented governor for tickless systems The venerable menu governor does some things that are quite questionable in my view. First, it includes timer wakeups in the pattern detection data and mixes them up with wakeups from other sources which in some cases causes it to expect what essentially would be a timer wakeup in a time frame in which no timer wakeups are possible (because it knows the time until the next timer event and that is later than the expected wakeup time). Second, it uses the extra exit latency limit based on the predicted idle duration and depending on the number of tasks waiting on I/O, even though those tasks may run on a different CPU when they are woken up. Moreover, the time ranges used by it for the sleep length correction factors depend on whether or not there are tasks waiting on I/O, which again doesn't imply anything in particular, and they are not correlated to the list of available idle states in any way whatever. Also, the pattern detection code in menu may end up considering values that are too large to matter at all, in which cases running it is a waste of time. A major rework of the menu governor would be required to address these issues and the performance of at least some workloads (tuned specifically to the current behavior of the menu governor) is likely to suffer from that. It is thus better to introduce an entirely new governor without them and let everybody use the governor that works better with their actual workloads. The new governor introduced here, the timer events oriented (TEO) governor, uses the same basic strategy as menu: it always tries to find the deepest idle state that can be used in the given conditions. However, it applies a different approach to that problem. First, it doesn't use "correction factors" for the time till the closest timer, but instead it tries to correlate the measured idle duration values with the available idle states and use that information to pick up the idle state that is most likely to "match" the upcoming CPU idle interval. Second, it doesn't take the number of "I/O waiters" into account at all and the pattern detection code in it avoids taking timer wakeups into account. It also only uses idle duration values less than the current time till the closest timer (with the tick excluded) for that purpose. Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> Acked-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
2019-01-04 19:30:47 +08:00
u64 sum = 0;
/*
* Count and sum the most recent idle duration values less than
* the current expected idle duration value.
cpuidle: New timer events oriented governor for tickless systems The venerable menu governor does some things that are quite questionable in my view. First, it includes timer wakeups in the pattern detection data and mixes them up with wakeups from other sources which in some cases causes it to expect what essentially would be a timer wakeup in a time frame in which no timer wakeups are possible (because it knows the time until the next timer event and that is later than the expected wakeup time). Second, it uses the extra exit latency limit based on the predicted idle duration and depending on the number of tasks waiting on I/O, even though those tasks may run on a different CPU when they are woken up. Moreover, the time ranges used by it for the sleep length correction factors depend on whether or not there are tasks waiting on I/O, which again doesn't imply anything in particular, and they are not correlated to the list of available idle states in any way whatever. Also, the pattern detection code in menu may end up considering values that are too large to matter at all, in which cases running it is a waste of time. A major rework of the menu governor would be required to address these issues and the performance of at least some workloads (tuned specifically to the current behavior of the menu governor) is likely to suffer from that. It is thus better to introduce an entirely new governor without them and let everybody use the governor that works better with their actual workloads. The new governor introduced here, the timer events oriented (TEO) governor, uses the same basic strategy as menu: it always tries to find the deepest idle state that can be used in the given conditions. However, it applies a different approach to that problem. First, it doesn't use "correction factors" for the time till the closest timer, but instead it tries to correlate the measured idle duration values with the available idle states and use that information to pick up the idle state that is most likely to "match" the upcoming CPU idle interval. Second, it doesn't take the number of "I/O waiters" into account at all and the pattern detection code in it avoids taking timer wakeups into account. It also only uses idle duration values less than the current time till the closest timer (with the tick excluded) for that purpose. Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> Acked-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
2019-01-04 19:30:47 +08:00
*/
for (i = 0; i < INTERVALS; i++) {
unsigned int val = cpu_data->intervals[i];
if (val >= duration_us)
cpuidle: New timer events oriented governor for tickless systems The venerable menu governor does some things that are quite questionable in my view. First, it includes timer wakeups in the pattern detection data and mixes them up with wakeups from other sources which in some cases causes it to expect what essentially would be a timer wakeup in a time frame in which no timer wakeups are possible (because it knows the time until the next timer event and that is later than the expected wakeup time). Second, it uses the extra exit latency limit based on the predicted idle duration and depending on the number of tasks waiting on I/O, even though those tasks may run on a different CPU when they are woken up. Moreover, the time ranges used by it for the sleep length correction factors depend on whether or not there are tasks waiting on I/O, which again doesn't imply anything in particular, and they are not correlated to the list of available idle states in any way whatever. Also, the pattern detection code in menu may end up considering values that are too large to matter at all, in which cases running it is a waste of time. A major rework of the menu governor would be required to address these issues and the performance of at least some workloads (tuned specifically to the current behavior of the menu governor) is likely to suffer from that. It is thus better to introduce an entirely new governor without them and let everybody use the governor that works better with their actual workloads. The new governor introduced here, the timer events oriented (TEO) governor, uses the same basic strategy as menu: it always tries to find the deepest idle state that can be used in the given conditions. However, it applies a different approach to that problem. First, it doesn't use "correction factors" for the time till the closest timer, but instead it tries to correlate the measured idle duration values with the available idle states and use that information to pick up the idle state that is most likely to "match" the upcoming CPU idle interval. Second, it doesn't take the number of "I/O waiters" into account at all and the pattern detection code in it avoids taking timer wakeups into account. It also only uses idle duration values less than the current time till the closest timer (with the tick excluded) for that purpose. Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> Acked-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
2019-01-04 19:30:47 +08:00
continue;
count++;
sum += val;
}
/*
* Give up unless the majority of the most recent idle duration
* values are in the interesting range.
*/
if (count > INTERVALS / 2) {
unsigned int avg_us = div64_u64(sum, count);
/*
* Avoid spending too much time in an idle state that
* would be too shallow.
*/
if (!(tick_nohz_tick_stopped() && avg_us < TICK_USEC)) {
duration_us = avg_us;
if (drv->states[idx].target_residency > avg_us)
idx = teo_find_shallower_state(drv, dev,
idx, avg_us);
cpuidle: New timer events oriented governor for tickless systems The venerable menu governor does some things that are quite questionable in my view. First, it includes timer wakeups in the pattern detection data and mixes them up with wakeups from other sources which in some cases causes it to expect what essentially would be a timer wakeup in a time frame in which no timer wakeups are possible (because it knows the time until the next timer event and that is later than the expected wakeup time). Second, it uses the extra exit latency limit based on the predicted idle duration and depending on the number of tasks waiting on I/O, even though those tasks may run on a different CPU when they are woken up. Moreover, the time ranges used by it for the sleep length correction factors depend on whether or not there are tasks waiting on I/O, which again doesn't imply anything in particular, and they are not correlated to the list of available idle states in any way whatever. Also, the pattern detection code in menu may end up considering values that are too large to matter at all, in which cases running it is a waste of time. A major rework of the menu governor would be required to address these issues and the performance of at least some workloads (tuned specifically to the current behavior of the menu governor) is likely to suffer from that. It is thus better to introduce an entirely new governor without them and let everybody use the governor that works better with their actual workloads. The new governor introduced here, the timer events oriented (TEO) governor, uses the same basic strategy as menu: it always tries to find the deepest idle state that can be used in the given conditions. However, it applies a different approach to that problem. First, it doesn't use "correction factors" for the time till the closest timer, but instead it tries to correlate the measured idle duration values with the available idle states and use that information to pick up the idle state that is most likely to "match" the upcoming CPU idle interval. Second, it doesn't take the number of "I/O waiters" into account at all and the pattern detection code in it avoids taking timer wakeups into account. It also only uses idle duration values less than the current time till the closest timer (with the tick excluded) for that purpose. Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> Acked-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
2019-01-04 19:30:47 +08:00
}
}
}
/*
* Don't stop the tick if the selected state is a polling one or if the
* expected idle duration is shorter than the tick period length.
*/
if (((drv->states[idx].flags & CPUIDLE_FLAG_POLLING) ||
duration_us < TICK_USEC) && !tick_nohz_tick_stopped()) {
unsigned int delta_tick_us = ktime_to_us(delta_tick);
*stop_tick = false;
/*
* The tick is not going to be stopped, so if the target
* residency of the state to be returned is not within the time
* till the closest timer including the tick, try to correct
* that.
*/
if (idx > 0 && drv->states[idx].target_residency > delta_tick_us)
idx = teo_find_shallower_state(drv, dev, idx, delta_tick_us);
}
return idx;
}
/**
* teo_reflect - Note that governor data for the CPU need to be updated.
* @dev: Target CPU.
* @state: Entered state.
*/
static void teo_reflect(struct cpuidle_device *dev, int state)
{
struct teo_cpu *cpu_data = per_cpu_ptr(&teo_cpus, dev->cpu);
dev->last_state_idx = state;
cpuidle: New timer events oriented governor for tickless systems The venerable menu governor does some things that are quite questionable in my view. First, it includes timer wakeups in the pattern detection data and mixes them up with wakeups from other sources which in some cases causes it to expect what essentially would be a timer wakeup in a time frame in which no timer wakeups are possible (because it knows the time until the next timer event and that is later than the expected wakeup time). Second, it uses the extra exit latency limit based on the predicted idle duration and depending on the number of tasks waiting on I/O, even though those tasks may run on a different CPU when they are woken up. Moreover, the time ranges used by it for the sleep length correction factors depend on whether or not there are tasks waiting on I/O, which again doesn't imply anything in particular, and they are not correlated to the list of available idle states in any way whatever. Also, the pattern detection code in menu may end up considering values that are too large to matter at all, in which cases running it is a waste of time. A major rework of the menu governor would be required to address these issues and the performance of at least some workloads (tuned specifically to the current behavior of the menu governor) is likely to suffer from that. It is thus better to introduce an entirely new governor without them and let everybody use the governor that works better with their actual workloads. The new governor introduced here, the timer events oriented (TEO) governor, uses the same basic strategy as menu: it always tries to find the deepest idle state that can be used in the given conditions. However, it applies a different approach to that problem. First, it doesn't use "correction factors" for the time till the closest timer, but instead it tries to correlate the measured idle duration values with the available idle states and use that information to pick up the idle state that is most likely to "match" the upcoming CPU idle interval. Second, it doesn't take the number of "I/O waiters" into account at all and the pattern detection code in it avoids taking timer wakeups into account. It also only uses idle duration values less than the current time till the closest timer (with the tick excluded) for that purpose. Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> Acked-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
2019-01-04 19:30:47 +08:00
/*
* If the wakeup was not "natural", but triggered by one of the safety
* nets, assume that the CPU might have been idle for the entire sleep
* length time.
*/
if (dev->poll_time_limit ||
(tick_nohz_idle_got_tick() && cpu_data->sleep_length_ns > TICK_NSEC)) {
dev->poll_time_limit = false;
cpu_data->time_span_ns = cpu_data->sleep_length_ns;
} else {
cpu_data->time_span_ns = local_clock() - cpu_data->time_span_ns;
}
}
/**
* teo_enable_device - Initialize the governor's data for the target CPU.
* @drv: cpuidle driver (not used).
* @dev: Target CPU.
*/
static int teo_enable_device(struct cpuidle_driver *drv,
struct cpuidle_device *dev)
{
struct teo_cpu *cpu_data = per_cpu_ptr(&teo_cpus, dev->cpu);
int i;
memset(cpu_data, 0, sizeof(*cpu_data));
for (i = 0; i < INTERVALS; i++)
cpu_data->intervals[i] = UINT_MAX;
return 0;
}
static struct cpuidle_governor teo_governor = {
.name = "teo",
.rating = 19,
.enable = teo_enable_device,
.select = teo_select,
.reflect = teo_reflect,
};
static int __init teo_governor_init(void)
{
return cpuidle_register_governor(&teo_governor);
}
postcore_initcall(teo_governor_init);