LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>
To: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
Cc: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@arm.com>,
	Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] sched: fair: Use the earliest break even
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2020 09:24:52 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200318082452.GA6103@e123083-lin> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7cd04d35-3522-30fb-82e9-82fdf53d0957@linaro.org>

On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 06:07:43PM +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 17/03/2020 15:30, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 02:48:51PM +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> >> On 17/03/2020 08:56, Morten Rasmussen wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 11:04:19AM +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> >>>>>> In order to be more energy efficient but without impacting the
> >>>>>> performances, let's use another criteria: the break even deadline.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> At idle time, when we store the idle state the CPU is entering in, we
> >>>>>> compute the next deadline where the CPU could be woken up without
> >>>>>> spending more energy to sleep.
> >>>
> >>> I don't follow the argument that sleeping longer should improve energy
> >>> consumption. 
> >>
> >> May be it is not explained correctly.
> >>
> >> The patch is about selecting a CPU with the smallest break even deadline
> >> value. In a group of idle CPUs in the same idle state, we will pick the
> >> one with the smallest break even dead line which is the one with the
> >> highest probability it already reached its target residency.
> >>
> >> It is best effort.
> > 
> > Indeed. I get what the patch does, I just don't see how the patch
> > improves energy efficiency.
> 
> If the CPU is woken up before it reached the break even, the idle state
> cost in energy is greater than the energy it saved.
> 
> Am I misunderstanding your point?

Considering just the waking then yes, it reaches energy break-even.
However, considering all the CPUs in the system, it just moves the idle
entry/exit energy cost to a different CPU, it doesn't go away.

Whether you have:

               |-BE-|
           ____    ____
CPU0:  ___/    \__/    \___

CPU1:  ____________________

Or:
               |-BE-|
           ____
CPU0:  ___/    \___________
                   ____
CPU1:  ___________/    \___

_
  = CPU busy = P_{busy}
_ = CPU idle = P_{idle}
/ = CPU idle exit = P_{exit}
\ = CPU idle entry = P_{entry}

The sum of areas under the curves is the same, i.e. the total energy is
unchanged.

Morten

  reply	other threads:[~2020-03-18  8:25 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-03-11 20:26 Daniel Lezcano
2020-03-12  8:36 ` Vincent Guittot
2020-03-12 10:04   ` Daniel Lezcano
2020-03-12 12:27     ` Vincent Guittot
2020-03-13 12:15       ` Daniel Lezcano
2020-03-13 13:15         ` Vincent Guittot
2020-03-13 13:17           ` Daniel Lezcano
2020-03-13 13:21             ` Vincent Guittot
2020-03-17  7:56     ` Morten Rasmussen
2020-03-17 13:48       ` Daniel Lezcano
2020-03-17 14:30         ` Morten Rasmussen
2020-03-17 17:07           ` Daniel Lezcano
2020-03-18  8:24             ` Morten Rasmussen [this message]
2020-03-18 10:17               ` Daniel Lezcano
2020-03-18 14:38                 ` Morten Rasmussen
2020-03-18  7:51           ` Vincent Guittot
2020-03-18  8:33             ` Morten Rasmussen
2020-03-17 10:56 ` Valentin Schneider
2020-03-17 13:59   ` Daniel Lezcano

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20200318082452.GA6103@e123083-lin \
    --to=morten.rasmussen@arm.com \
    --cc=bsegall@google.com \
    --cc=daniel.lezcano@linaro.org \
    --cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
    --cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=qais.yousef@arm.com \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=valentin.schneider@arm.com \
    --cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH V2] sched: fair: Use the earliest break even' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).