On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 06:30:49PM +0100, Pawel Moll wrote:
> Greetings All,
>
> More and more of people are getting interested in the subject of power
> (energy) consumption monitoring. We have some external tools like
> "battery simulators", energy probes etc., but some targets can measure
> their power usage on their own.
>
> Traditionally such data should be exposed to the user via hwmon sysfs
> interface, and that's exactly what I did for "my" platform - I have
> a /sys/class/hwmon/hwmon*/device/energy*_input and this was good
> enough to draw pretty graphs in userspace. Everyone was happy...
>
Only driver supporting "energy" output so far is ibmaem, and the reported energy
is supposed to be cumulative, as in energy = power * time. Do you mean power,
possibly ?
> Now I am getting new requests to do more with this data. In particular
> I'm asked how to add such information to ftrace/perf output. The second
> most frequent request is about providing it to a "energy aware"
> cpufreq governor.
>
Anything energy related would have to be along the line of "do something after a
certain amount of work has been performed", which at least at the surface does
not make much sense to me, unless you mean something along the line of a
process scheduler which schedules a process not based on time slices but based
on energy consumed, ie if you want to define a time slice not in milli-seconds
but in Joule.
If so, I would argue that a similar behavior could be achieved by varying the
duration of time slices with the current CPU speed, or simply by using cycle
count instead of time as time slice parameter. Not that I am sure if such an
approach would really be of interest for anyone.
Or do you really mean power, not energy, such as in "reduce CPU speed if its
power consumption is above X Watt" ?
> I've came up with three (non-mutually exclusive) options. I will
> appreciate any other ideas and comments (including "it makes not sense
> whatsoever" ones, with justification). Of course I am more than willing
> to spend time on prototyping anything that seems reasonable and propose
> patches.
>
>
>
> === Option 1: Trace event ===
>
> This seems to be the "cheapest" option. Simply defining a trace event
> that can be generated by a hwmon (or any other) driver makes the
> interesting data immediately available to any ftrace/perf user. Of
> course it doesn't really help with the cpufreq case, but seems to be
> a good place to start with.
>
> The question is how to define it... I've came up with two prototypes:
>
> = Generic hwmon trace event =
>
> This one allows any driver to generate a trace event whenever any
> "hwmon attribute" (measured value) gets updated. The rate at which the
> updates happen can be controlled by already existing "update_interval"
> attribute.
>
> 8<-------------------------------------------
> TRACE_EVENT(hwmon_attr_update,
> TP_PROTO(struct device *dev, struct attribute *attr, long long input),
> TP_ARGS(dev, attr, input),
>
> TP_STRUCT__entry(
> __string( dev, dev_name(dev))
> __string( attr, attr->name)
> __field( long long, input)
> ),
>
> TP_fast_assign(
> __assign_str(dev, dev_name(dev));
> __assign_str(attr, attr->name);
> __entry->input = input;
> ),
>
> TP_printk("%s %s %lld", __get_str(dev), __get_str(attr), __entry->input)
> );
> 8<-------------------------------------------
>
> It generates such ftrace message:
>
> <...>212.673126: hwmon_attr_update: hwmon4 temp1_input 34361
>
> One issue with this is that some external knowledge is required to
> relate a number to a processor core. Or maybe it's not an issue at all
> because it should be left for the user(space)?
>
> = CPU power/energy/temperature trace event =
>
> This one is designed to emphasize the relation between the measured
> value (whether it is energy, temperature or any other physical
> phenomena, really) and CPUs, so it is quite specific (too specific?)
>
> 8<-------------------------------------------
> TRACE_EVENT(cpus_environment,
> TP_PROTO(const struct cpumask *cpus, long long value, char unit),
> TP_ARGS(cpus, value, unit),
>
> TP_STRUCT__entry(
> __array( unsigned char, cpus, sizeof(struct cpumask))
> __field( long long, value)
> __field( char, unit)
> ),
>
> TP_fast_assign(
> memcpy(__entry->cpus, cpus, sizeof(struct cpumask));
> __entry->value = value;
> __entry->unit = unit;
> ),
>
> TP_printk("cpus %s %lld[%c]",
> __print_cpumask((struct cpumask *)__entry->cpus),
> __entry->value, __entry->unit)
> );
> 8<-------------------------------------------
>
> And the equivalent ftrace message is:
>
> <...>127.063107: cpus_environment: cpus 0,1,2,3 34361[C]
>
> It's a cpumask, not just single cpu id, because the sensor may measure
> the value per set of CPUs, eg. a temperature of the whole silicon die
> (so all the cores) or an energy consumed by a subset of cores (this
> is my particular use case - two meters monitor a cluster of two
> processors and a cluster of three processors, all working as a SMP
> system).
>
> Of course the cpus __array could be actually a special __cpumask field
> type (I've just hacked the __print_cpumask so far). And I've just
> realised that the unit field should actually be a string to allow unit
> prefixes to be specified (the above should obviously be "34361[mC]"
> not "[C]"). Also - excuse the "cpus_environment" name - this was the
> best I was able to come up with at the time and I'm eager to accept
> any alternative suggestions :-)
>
I am not sure how this would be expected to work. hwmon is, by its very nature,
a passive subsystem: It doesn't do anything unless data is explicitly requested
from it. It does not update an attribute unless that attribute is read.
That does not seem to fit well with the idea of tracing - which assumes
that some activity is happening, ultimately, all by itself, presumably
periodically. The idea to have a user space application read hwmon data only
for it to trigger trace events does not seem to be very compelling to me.
An exception is if a monitoring device suppports interrupts, and if its driver
actually implements those interrupts. This is, however, not the case for most of
the current drivers (if any), mostly because interrupt support for hardware
monitoring devices is very platform dependent and thus difficult to implement.
>
> === Option 2: hwmon perf PMU ===
>
> Although the trace event makes it possible to obtain interesting
> information using perf, the user wouldn't be able to treat the
> energy meter as a normal data source. In particular there would
> be no way of creating a group of events consisting eg. of a
> "normal" leader (eg. cache miss event) triggering energy meter
> read. The only way to get this done is to implement a perf PMU
> backend providing "environmental data" to the user.
>
> = High-level hwmon API and PMU =
>
> Current hwmon subsystem does not provide any abstraction for the
> measured values and requires particular drivers to create specified
> sysfs attributes than used by userspace libsensors. This makes
> the framework ultimately flexible and ultimately hard to access
> from within the kernel...
>
> What could be done here is some (simple) API to register the
> measured values with the hwmon core which would result in creating
> equivalent sysfs attributes automagically, but also allow a
> in-kernel API for values enumeration and access. That way the core
> could also register a "hwmon PMU" with the perf framework providing
> data from all "compliant" drivers.
>
> = A driver-specific PMU =
>
> Of course a particular driver could register its own perf PMU on its
> own. It's certainly an option, just very suboptimal in my opinion.
> Or maybe not? Maybe the task is so specialized that it makes sense?
>
We had a couple of attempts to provide an in-kernel API. Unfortunately,
the result was, at least so far, more complexity on the driver side.
So the difficulty is really to define an API which is really simple, and does
not just complicate driver development for a (presumably) rare use case.
Guenter
>
>
> === Option 3: CPU power(energy) monitoring framework ===
>
> And last but not least, maybe the problem deserves some dedicated
> API? Something that would take providers and feed their data into
> interested parties, in particular a perf PMU implementation and
> cpufreq governors?
>
> Maybe it could be an extension to the thermal framework? It already
> gives some meaning to a physical phenomena. Adding other, related ones
> like energy, and relating it to cpu cores could make some sense.
>
>
>
> I've tried to gather all potentially interested audience in the To:
> list, but if I missed anyone - please, do let them (and/or me) know.
>
> Best regards and thanks for participation in the discussion!
>
> Pawel
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
