On 05/13/2013 08:55 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 05/13/2013 11:04 AM, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>> On 05/13/2013 12:22 PM, Lianwei Wang wrote:
>>> Thank you. Patch is updated.
>>>
>>> From 2d0b4afb5461847dcdf08a87b02015d061b12e85 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>> From: Lianwei Wang <lianwei.wang@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 10:59:24 +0800
>>> Subject: [PATCH] cpuidle: wakeup processor on a smaller latency
>>>
>>> Checking the PM-Qos latency and cpu idle sleep latency, and only
>>> wakeup the cpu if the requested PM-Qos latency is smaller than its
>>> idle sleep latency. This can reduce at least 50% cpu wakeup count
>>> on PM-Qos updated.
>>>
>>> The PM-Qos is not updated most of time, especially for home idle
>>> case. But for some specific case, the PM-Qos may be updated too
>>> frequently. (E.g. my measurement show that it is changed frequently
>>> between 2us/3us/200us/200s for bootup and usb case.)
>>>
>>> The battery current drain is measured from PMIC or battery eliminator.
>>> Although this is just a little saving, it is still reasonable to
>>> improve it.
>>>
>>
>> I don't understand how this patch is supposed to improve things.
>>
>> IIUC, if a CPU was sleeping for a short duration, and you set the latency
>> requirement for a longer value, this patch will avoid waking that CPU.
>> But how does that help? Perhaps, during the short sleep, the CPU was
>> actually in a shallow (less power-saving) sleep state, and hence it might
>> actually be better off waking it up and then putting it into a much
>> deeper sleep state no?
>
> Yes, that is a good point. But I am wondering if what you described
> could happen with the commit 69a37beabf1f0a6705c08e879bdd5d82ff6486c4.
>
> If a non-deepest idle state is chosen by the menu governor, a timer will
> expire right after the target residency and wakeup the cpu. That will
> re-evaluate the c-state.
>
Yeah, that commit adds a good safety-check to ensure that we don't suffer
too much loss in power-savings due to mis-predictions in the menu governor.
But I don't think this particular patch helps. So, IMHO, we should leave
that cpu_dma_latency handler as it is.
Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat
>> And if we ignore the sleep length for a moment, in the case that you
>> set a very strict latency requirement and then later relax the constraint,
>> does it not make sense to wake up the CPUs and allow them to go to
>> deeper sleep states?
>>
>> And IMHO there are other problems with this patch as well, see below.
>>
>>> Change-Id: If564fd0d9c53cf100bd85247bfd509dfeaf54c13
>>> Signed-off-by: Lianwei Wang <lianwei.wang@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c | 17 ++++++++++++++++-
>>> 1 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>> diff --git a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c
>>> index 2f0083a..a0829ad 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c
>>> @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@
>>> #include <linux/ktime.h>
>>> #include <linux/hrtimer.h>
>>> #include <linux/module.h>
>>> +#include <linux/tick.h>
>>> #include <trace/events/power.h>
>>>
>>> #include "cpuidle.h"
>>> @@ -462,11 +463,25 @@ static void smp_callback(void *v)
>>> * requirement. This means we need to get all processors out of their C-state,
>>> * and then recalculate a new suitable C-state. Just do a cross-cpu IPI; that
>>> * wakes them all right up.
>>> + * l - > latency in us
>>> */
>>> static int cpuidle_latency_notify(struct notifier_block *b,
>>> unsigned long l, void *v)
>>> {
>>> - smp_call_function(smp_callback, NULL, 1);
>>> + int cpu, rcpu = smp_processor_id();
>>
>> This is not atomic context. So your rcpu is not guaranteed to remain valid
>> (because you can get migrated to another cpu).
>>
>>> + s64 s; /* sleep_length in us */
>>> + struct tick_device *td;
>>> +
>>> + for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
>>
>> You need to protect against CPU hotplug, by using get/put_online_cpus().
>>
>>> + if (cpu == rcpu)
>>> + continue;
>>> + td = tick_get_device(cpu);
>>> + s = ktime_us_delta(td->evtdev->next_event, ktime_get());
>>
>> What happens if that wakeup event got cancelled just after this? And hence
>> the CPU sleeps longer than expected... In that case, you'll be violating
>> the latency requirement set by the user, no?
>>
>> Moreover, looking at the menu and ladder cpu idle governors, the value set
>> in cpu_dma_latency is used to compare with the *exit-latency* of the sleep
>> state in order to decide which sleep state to go to. IOW, it has got *nothing*
>> to do with the duration of the sleep!!
>>
>>> + if ((long)l < (long)s) {
>>
>> ... and hence, this check doesn't make sense at all!
>>
>>> + smp_call_function_single(cpu, smp_callback, NULL, 1);
>>> + }
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> return NOTIFY_OK;
>>> }
>>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Srivatsa S. Bhat
>>
>
