On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 05:15:05PM +0530, Pratik Rajesh Sampat wrote: > Changelog v3-->v4: > 1. Overhaul in implementation from kernel module to a userspace selftest > --- > > The patch series introduces a mechanism to measure wakeup latency for > IPI and timer based interrupts > The motivation behind this series is to find significant deviations > behind advertised latency and residency values > > To achieve this in the userspace, IPI latencies are calculated by > sending information through pipes and inducing a wakeup, similarly > alarm events are setup for calculate timer based wakeup latencies. > > To account for delays from kernel-userspace interactions baseline > observations are taken on a 100% busy CPU and subsequent obervations > must be considered relative to that. > > In theory, wakeups induced by IPI and Timers should have similar > wakeup latencies, however in practice there may be deviations which may > need to be captured. > > One downside of the userspace approach in contrast to the kernel > implementation is that the run to run variance can turn out to be high > in the order of ms; which is the scope of the experiments at times. > > Another downside of the userspace approach is that it takes much longer > to run and hence a command-line option quick and full are added to make > sure quick 1 CPU tests can be carried out when needed and otherwise it > can carry out a full system comprehensive test. > > Usage > --- > ./cpuidle --mode <full / quick / num_cpus> --output <output location> > full: runs on all CPUS > quick: run on a random CPU > num_cpus: Limit the number of CPUS to run on > > Sample output snippet > --------------------- > --IPI Latency Test--- > SRC_CPU DEST_CPU IPI_Latency(ns) > ... > 0 5 256178 > 0 6 478161 > 0 7 285445 > 0 8 273553 > Expected IPI latency(ns): 100000 > Observed Average IPI latency(ns): 248334 I suppose by run-to-run variance you are referring to the outliers in the above sequence (like 478161) ? Or is it that each time you run your test program you observe completely different series of values ? If it is the former, then perhaps we could discard the outliers for the purpose of average latency computation and print the max, min and the corrected-average values above. > > --Timeout Latency Test-- > --Baseline Timeout Latency measurement: CPU Busy-- > Wakeup_src Baseline_delay(ns) > ... > 32 972405 > 33 1004287 > 34 986663 > 35 994022 > Expected timeout(ns): 10000000 > Observed Average timeout diff(ns): 991844 > It would be good to see a complete sample output, perhaps for the --mode=10 so that it is easy to discern if there are cases when the observed timeouts/IPI latencies for the busy case are larger than the idle-case. > Pratik Rajesh Sampat (1): > selftests/cpuidle: Add support for cpuidle latency measurement > > tools/testing/selftests/Makefile | 1 + > tools/testing/selftests/cpuidle/Makefile | 7 + > tools/testing/selftests/cpuidle/cpuidle.c | 616 ++++++++++++++++++++++ > tools/testing/selftests/cpuidle/settings | 1 + > 4 files changed, 625 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/cpuidle/Makefile > create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/cpuidle/cpuidle.c > create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/cpuidle/settings > > -- > 2.26.2 > -- Thanks and Regards gautham.
