From: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>,
Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>,
Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v0.1 6/6] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Add basic EAS support on hybrid platforms
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2024 09:21:16 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <c4631fdd-0b01-4bda-9e9f-6ac974e27b68@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <115421572.nniJfEyVGO@rjwysocki.net>
On 08/11/2024 17:46, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
>
> Modify intel_pstate to register stub EM perf domains for CPUs on
> hybrid platforms via em_dev_register_perf_domain() and to use
> em_dev_expand_perf_domain() introduced previously for adding new
> CPUs to existing EM perf domains when those CPUs become online for
> the first time after driver initialization.
>
> This change is targeting platforms (for example, Lunar Lake) where
> "small" CPUs (E-cores) are always more energy-efficient than the "big"
> or "performance" CPUs (P-cores) when run at the same HWP performance
> level, so it is sufficient to tell the EAS that E-cores are always
> preferred (so long as there is enough spare capacity on one of them
> to run the given task).
By treating all big CPUs (ignoring the different itmt prio values
between them) we would have a system in which PD's are not in sync with
the asym_cap_list* or the CPU capacities of individual CPUs and sched
groups within the sched domain. Not sure if we want to go this way?
* used by misfit handling - 22d5607400c6 ("sched/fair: Check if a task
has a fitting CPU when updating misfit")
> Accordingly, the perf domains are registered per CPU type (that is,
> all P-cores belong to one perf domain and all E-cores belong to another
> perf domain) and they are registered only if asymmetric CPU capacity is
> enabled. Each perf domain has a one-element states table and that
> element only contains the relative cost value (the other fields in
> it are not initialized, so they are all equal to zero), and the cost
> value for the E-core perf domain is lower.
[...]
> +static int hybrid_pcore_cost(struct device *dev, unsigned long freq,
> + unsigned long *cost)
> +{
> + /*
> + * The number used here needs to be higher than the analogous
> + * one in hybrid_ecore_cost() below. The units and the actual
> + * values don't matter.
> + */
> + *cost = 2;
> + return 0;
So you're not tying this to HFI energy scores?
> +}
> +
> +static int hybrid_ecore_cost(struct device *dev, unsigned long freq,
> + unsigned long *cost)
> +{
> + *cost = 1;
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static struct hybrid_em_perf_domain perf_domains[HYBRID_NR_TYPES] = {
> + [HYBRID_PCORE] = { .cb.get_cost = hybrid_pcore_cost, },
> + [HYBRID_ECORE] = { .cb.get_cost = hybrid_ecore_cost, }
> +};
> +
> +static bool hybrid_register_perf_domain(struct hybrid_em_perf_domain *pd)
> +{
> + /*
> + * Registering EM perf domains without asymmetric CPU capacity
> + * support enabled is wasteful, so don't do that.
> + */
> + if (!hybrid_max_perf_cpu)
> + return false;
> +
> + pd->dev = get_cpu_device(cpumask_first(&pd->cpumask));
> + if (!pd->dev)
> + return false;
> +
> + if (em_dev_register_perf_domain(pd->dev, 1, &pd->cb, &pd->cpumask, false)) {
> + pd->dev = NULL;
> + return false;
> + }
> +
> + return true;
> +}
What are the issues in case you would use the existing ways (non-stub)
to setup the EM?
static int intel_pstate_get_cpu_cost()
static void intel_pstate_register_em(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
struct em_data_callback em_cb = EM_ADV_DATA_CB(NULL,
intel_pstate_get_cpu_cost)
em_dev_register_perf_domain(get_cpu_device(policy->cpu), 1,
&em_cb, policy->related_cpus, 1);
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^*
static void intel_pstate_set_register_em_fct(void)
default_driver->register_em = intel_pstate_register_em
static int __init intel_pstate_init(void)
...
intel_pstate_set_register_em_fct()
...
I guess one issue is the per-CPU policy as an argument to
em_dev_register_perf_domain() (*) ?
> +static void hybrid_register_all_perf_domains(void)
> +{
> + enum hybrid_cpu_type type;
> +
> + for (type = HYBRID_PCORE; type < HYBRID_NR_TYPES; type++)
> + hybrid_register_perf_domain(&perf_domains[type]);
> +}
> +
> +static void hybrid_add_to_perf_domain(int cpu, enum hybrid_cpu_type type)
> +{
> + struct hybrid_em_perf_domain *pd = &perf_domains[type];
> +
> + guard(mutex)(&hybrid_capacity_lock);
> +
> + if (cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, &pd->cpumask))
> + return;
> +
> + cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, &pd->cpumask);
> + if (pd->dev)
> + em_dev_expand_perf_domain(pd->dev, cpu);
> + else if (hybrid_register_perf_domain(pd))
> + em_rebuild_perf_domains();
I assume that the 'if' and the 'else if' condition here are only taken
when the CPU is brought online after boot?
[...]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-11-12 8:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-11-08 16:09 [RFC][PATCH v0.1 0/6] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Enable EAS on hybrid platforms without SMT Rafael J. Wysocki
2024-11-08 16:36 ` [RFC][PATCH v0.1 1/6] PM: EM: Move perf rebuilding function from schedutil to EM Rafael J. Wysocki
2024-11-08 16:37 ` [RFC][PATCH v0.1 2/6] PM: EM: Call em_compute_costs() from em_create_perf_table() Rafael J. Wysocki
2024-11-12 8:21 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2024-11-08 16:38 ` [RFC][PATCH v0.1 3/6] PM: EM: Add special case to em_dev_register_perf_domain() Rafael J. Wysocki
2024-11-12 8:21 ` Dietmar Eggemann
2024-11-18 15:24 ` Hongyan Xia
2024-11-19 13:51 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2024-11-08 16:40 ` [RFC][PATCH v0.1 4/6] PM: EM: Introduce em_dev_expand_perf_domain() Rafael J. Wysocki
2024-11-08 16:41 ` [RFC][PATCH v0.1 5/6] sched/topology: Allow .setpolicy() cpufreq drivers to enable EAS Rafael J. Wysocki
2024-11-11 11:54 ` Christian Loehle
2024-11-11 13:54 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2024-11-19 15:13 ` Vincent Guittot
2024-11-19 17:37 ` Peter Zijlstra
2024-11-19 19:28 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2024-11-08 16:46 ` [RFC][PATCH v0.1 6/6] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Add basic EAS support on hybrid platforms Rafael J. Wysocki
2024-11-12 8:21 ` Dietmar Eggemann [this message]
2024-11-19 14:38 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2024-11-18 16:34 ` Pierre Gondois
2024-11-19 17:20 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2024-12-16 15:32 ` Pierre Gondois
2024-12-16 17:25 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
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=c4631fdd-0b01-4bda-9e9f-6ac974e27b68@arm.com \
--to=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=len.brown@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lukasz.luba@arm.com \
--cc=morten.rasmussen@arm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
/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
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®