WSL2-Linux-Kernel/include/linux/energy_model.h

350 строки
12 KiB
C
Исходник Обычный вид История

PM: Introduce an Energy Model management framework Several subsystems in the kernel (task scheduler and/or thermal at the time of writing) can benefit from knowing about the energy consumed by CPUs. Yet, this information can come from different sources (DT or firmware for example), in different formats, hence making it hard to exploit without a standard API. As an attempt to address this, introduce a centralized Energy Model (EM) management framework which aggregates the power values provided by drivers into a table for each performance domain in the system. The power cost tables are made available to interested clients (e.g. task scheduler or thermal) via platform-agnostic APIs. The overall design is represented by the diagram below (focused on Arm-related drivers as an example, but applicable to any architecture): +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | Thermal (IPA) | | Scheduler (EAS) | | Other | +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | | em_pd_energy() | | | em_cpu_get() | +-----------+ | +--------+ | | | v v v +---------------------+ | | | Energy Model | | | | Framework | | | +---------------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | em_register_perf_domain() +----------+ | +---------+ | | | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | cpufreq-dt | | arm_scmi | | Other | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | Device Tree | | Firmware | | ? | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ Drivers (typically, but not limited to, CPUFreq drivers) can register data in the EM framework using the em_register_perf_domain() API. The calling driver must provide a callback function with a standardized signature that will be used by the EM framework to build the power cost tables of the performance domain. This design should offer a lot of flexibility to calling drivers which are free of reading information from any location and to use any technique to compute power costs. Moreover, the capacity states registered by drivers in the EM framework are not required to match real performance states of the target. This is particularly important on targets where the performance states are not known by the OS. The power cost coefficients managed by the EM framework are specified in milli-watts. Although the two potential users of those coefficients (IPA and EAS) only need relative correctness, IPA specifically needs to compare the power of CPUs with the power of other components (GPUs, for example), which are still expressed in absolute terms in their respective subsystems. Hence, specifying the power of CPUs in milli-watts should help transitioning IPA to using the EM framework without introducing new problems by keeping units comparable across sub-systems. On the longer term, the EM of other devices than CPUs could also be managed by the EM framework, which would enable to remove the absolute unit. However, this is not absolutely required as a first step, so this extension of the EM framework is left for later. On the client side, the EM framework offers APIs to access the power cost tables of a CPU (em_cpu_get()), and to estimate the energy consumed by the CPUs of a performance domain (em_pd_energy()). Clients such as the task scheduler can then use these APIs to access the shared data structures holding the Energy Model of CPUs. Signed-off-by: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: adharmap@codeaurora.org Cc: chris.redpath@arm.com Cc: currojerez@riseup.net Cc: dietmar.eggemann@arm.com Cc: edubezval@gmail.com Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Cc: javi.merino@kernel.org Cc: joel@joelfernandes.org Cc: juri.lelli@redhat.com Cc: morten.rasmussen@arm.com Cc: patrick.bellasi@arm.com Cc: pkondeti@codeaurora.org Cc: skannan@codeaurora.org Cc: smuckle@google.com Cc: srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com Cc: thara.gopinath@linaro.org Cc: tkjos@google.com Cc: valentin.schneider@arm.com Cc: vincent.guittot@linaro.org Cc: viresh.kumar@linaro.org Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181203095628.11858-4-quentin.perret@arm.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2018-12-03 12:56:16 +03:00
/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
#ifndef _LINUX_ENERGY_MODEL_H
#define _LINUX_ENERGY_MODEL_H
#include <linux/cpumask.h>
#include <linux/device.h>
PM: Introduce an Energy Model management framework Several subsystems in the kernel (task scheduler and/or thermal at the time of writing) can benefit from knowing about the energy consumed by CPUs. Yet, this information can come from different sources (DT or firmware for example), in different formats, hence making it hard to exploit without a standard API. As an attempt to address this, introduce a centralized Energy Model (EM) management framework which aggregates the power values provided by drivers into a table for each performance domain in the system. The power cost tables are made available to interested clients (e.g. task scheduler or thermal) via platform-agnostic APIs. The overall design is represented by the diagram below (focused on Arm-related drivers as an example, but applicable to any architecture): +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | Thermal (IPA) | | Scheduler (EAS) | | Other | +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | | em_pd_energy() | | | em_cpu_get() | +-----------+ | +--------+ | | | v v v +---------------------+ | | | Energy Model | | | | Framework | | | +---------------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | em_register_perf_domain() +----------+ | +---------+ | | | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | cpufreq-dt | | arm_scmi | | Other | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | Device Tree | | Firmware | | ? | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ Drivers (typically, but not limited to, CPUFreq drivers) can register data in the EM framework using the em_register_perf_domain() API. The calling driver must provide a callback function with a standardized signature that will be used by the EM framework to build the power cost tables of the performance domain. This design should offer a lot of flexibility to calling drivers which are free of reading information from any location and to use any technique to compute power costs. Moreover, the capacity states registered by drivers in the EM framework are not required to match real performance states of the target. This is particularly important on targets where the performance states are not known by the OS. The power cost coefficients managed by the EM framework are specified in milli-watts. Although the two potential users of those coefficients (IPA and EAS) only need relative correctness, IPA specifically needs to compare the power of CPUs with the power of other components (GPUs, for example), which are still expressed in absolute terms in their respective subsystems. Hence, specifying the power of CPUs in milli-watts should help transitioning IPA to using the EM framework without introducing new problems by keeping units comparable across sub-systems. On the longer term, the EM of other devices than CPUs could also be managed by the EM framework, which would enable to remove the absolute unit. However, this is not absolutely required as a first step, so this extension of the EM framework is left for later. On the client side, the EM framework offers APIs to access the power cost tables of a CPU (em_cpu_get()), and to estimate the energy consumed by the CPUs of a performance domain (em_pd_energy()). Clients such as the task scheduler can then use these APIs to access the shared data structures holding the Energy Model of CPUs. Signed-off-by: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: adharmap@codeaurora.org Cc: chris.redpath@arm.com Cc: currojerez@riseup.net Cc: dietmar.eggemann@arm.com Cc: edubezval@gmail.com Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Cc: javi.merino@kernel.org Cc: joel@joelfernandes.org Cc: juri.lelli@redhat.com Cc: morten.rasmussen@arm.com Cc: patrick.bellasi@arm.com Cc: pkondeti@codeaurora.org Cc: skannan@codeaurora.org Cc: smuckle@google.com Cc: srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com Cc: thara.gopinath@linaro.org Cc: tkjos@google.com Cc: valentin.schneider@arm.com Cc: vincent.guittot@linaro.org Cc: viresh.kumar@linaro.org Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181203095628.11858-4-quentin.perret@arm.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2018-12-03 12:56:16 +03:00
#include <linux/jump_label.h>
#include <linux/kobject.h>
#include <linux/rcupdate.h>
#include <linux/sched/cpufreq.h>
#include <linux/sched/topology.h>
#include <linux/types.h>
/**
* struct em_perf_state - Performance state of a performance domain
* @frequency: The frequency in KHz, for consistency with CPUFreq
* @power: The power consumed at this level (by 1 CPU or by a registered
* device). It can be a total power: static and dynamic.
PM: Introduce an Energy Model management framework Several subsystems in the kernel (task scheduler and/or thermal at the time of writing) can benefit from knowing about the energy consumed by CPUs. Yet, this information can come from different sources (DT or firmware for example), in different formats, hence making it hard to exploit without a standard API. As an attempt to address this, introduce a centralized Energy Model (EM) management framework which aggregates the power values provided by drivers into a table for each performance domain in the system. The power cost tables are made available to interested clients (e.g. task scheduler or thermal) via platform-agnostic APIs. The overall design is represented by the diagram below (focused on Arm-related drivers as an example, but applicable to any architecture): +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | Thermal (IPA) | | Scheduler (EAS) | | Other | +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | | em_pd_energy() | | | em_cpu_get() | +-----------+ | +--------+ | | | v v v +---------------------+ | | | Energy Model | | | | Framework | | | +---------------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | em_register_perf_domain() +----------+ | +---------+ | | | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | cpufreq-dt | | arm_scmi | | Other | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | Device Tree | | Firmware | | ? | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ Drivers (typically, but not limited to, CPUFreq drivers) can register data in the EM framework using the em_register_perf_domain() API. The calling driver must provide a callback function with a standardized signature that will be used by the EM framework to build the power cost tables of the performance domain. This design should offer a lot of flexibility to calling drivers which are free of reading information from any location and to use any technique to compute power costs. Moreover, the capacity states registered by drivers in the EM framework are not required to match real performance states of the target. This is particularly important on targets where the performance states are not known by the OS. The power cost coefficients managed by the EM framework are specified in milli-watts. Although the two potential users of those coefficients (IPA and EAS) only need relative correctness, IPA specifically needs to compare the power of CPUs with the power of other components (GPUs, for example), which are still expressed in absolute terms in their respective subsystems. Hence, specifying the power of CPUs in milli-watts should help transitioning IPA to using the EM framework without introducing new problems by keeping units comparable across sub-systems. On the longer term, the EM of other devices than CPUs could also be managed by the EM framework, which would enable to remove the absolute unit. However, this is not absolutely required as a first step, so this extension of the EM framework is left for later. On the client side, the EM framework offers APIs to access the power cost tables of a CPU (em_cpu_get()), and to estimate the energy consumed by the CPUs of a performance domain (em_pd_energy()). Clients such as the task scheduler can then use these APIs to access the shared data structures holding the Energy Model of CPUs. Signed-off-by: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: adharmap@codeaurora.org Cc: chris.redpath@arm.com Cc: currojerez@riseup.net Cc: dietmar.eggemann@arm.com Cc: edubezval@gmail.com Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Cc: javi.merino@kernel.org Cc: joel@joelfernandes.org Cc: juri.lelli@redhat.com Cc: morten.rasmussen@arm.com Cc: patrick.bellasi@arm.com Cc: pkondeti@codeaurora.org Cc: skannan@codeaurora.org Cc: smuckle@google.com Cc: srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com Cc: thara.gopinath@linaro.org Cc: tkjos@google.com Cc: valentin.schneider@arm.com Cc: vincent.guittot@linaro.org Cc: viresh.kumar@linaro.org Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181203095628.11858-4-quentin.perret@arm.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2018-12-03 12:56:16 +03:00
* @cost: The cost coefficient associated with this level, used during
* energy calculation. Equal to: power * max_frequency / frequency
* @flags: see "em_perf_state flags" description below.
PM: Introduce an Energy Model management framework Several subsystems in the kernel (task scheduler and/or thermal at the time of writing) can benefit from knowing about the energy consumed by CPUs. Yet, this information can come from different sources (DT or firmware for example), in different formats, hence making it hard to exploit without a standard API. As an attempt to address this, introduce a centralized Energy Model (EM) management framework which aggregates the power values provided by drivers into a table for each performance domain in the system. The power cost tables are made available to interested clients (e.g. task scheduler or thermal) via platform-agnostic APIs. The overall design is represented by the diagram below (focused on Arm-related drivers as an example, but applicable to any architecture): +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | Thermal (IPA) | | Scheduler (EAS) | | Other | +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | | em_pd_energy() | | | em_cpu_get() | +-----------+ | +--------+ | | | v v v +---------------------+ | | | Energy Model | | | | Framework | | | +---------------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | em_register_perf_domain() +----------+ | +---------+ | | | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | cpufreq-dt | | arm_scmi | | Other | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | Device Tree | | Firmware | | ? | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ Drivers (typically, but not limited to, CPUFreq drivers) can register data in the EM framework using the em_register_perf_domain() API. The calling driver must provide a callback function with a standardized signature that will be used by the EM framework to build the power cost tables of the performance domain. This design should offer a lot of flexibility to calling drivers which are free of reading information from any location and to use any technique to compute power costs. Moreover, the capacity states registered by drivers in the EM framework are not required to match real performance states of the target. This is particularly important on targets where the performance states are not known by the OS. The power cost coefficients managed by the EM framework are specified in milli-watts. Although the two potential users of those coefficients (IPA and EAS) only need relative correctness, IPA specifically needs to compare the power of CPUs with the power of other components (GPUs, for example), which are still expressed in absolute terms in their respective subsystems. Hence, specifying the power of CPUs in milli-watts should help transitioning IPA to using the EM framework without introducing new problems by keeping units comparable across sub-systems. On the longer term, the EM of other devices than CPUs could also be managed by the EM framework, which would enable to remove the absolute unit. However, this is not absolutely required as a first step, so this extension of the EM framework is left for later. On the client side, the EM framework offers APIs to access the power cost tables of a CPU (em_cpu_get()), and to estimate the energy consumed by the CPUs of a performance domain (em_pd_energy()). Clients such as the task scheduler can then use these APIs to access the shared data structures holding the Energy Model of CPUs. Signed-off-by: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: adharmap@codeaurora.org Cc: chris.redpath@arm.com Cc: currojerez@riseup.net Cc: dietmar.eggemann@arm.com Cc: edubezval@gmail.com Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Cc: javi.merino@kernel.org Cc: joel@joelfernandes.org Cc: juri.lelli@redhat.com Cc: morten.rasmussen@arm.com Cc: patrick.bellasi@arm.com Cc: pkondeti@codeaurora.org Cc: skannan@codeaurora.org Cc: smuckle@google.com Cc: srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com Cc: thara.gopinath@linaro.org Cc: tkjos@google.com Cc: valentin.schneider@arm.com Cc: vincent.guittot@linaro.org Cc: viresh.kumar@linaro.org Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181203095628.11858-4-quentin.perret@arm.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2018-12-03 12:56:16 +03:00
*/
struct em_perf_state {
PM: Introduce an Energy Model management framework Several subsystems in the kernel (task scheduler and/or thermal at the time of writing) can benefit from knowing about the energy consumed by CPUs. Yet, this information can come from different sources (DT or firmware for example), in different formats, hence making it hard to exploit without a standard API. As an attempt to address this, introduce a centralized Energy Model (EM) management framework which aggregates the power values provided by drivers into a table for each performance domain in the system. The power cost tables are made available to interested clients (e.g. task scheduler or thermal) via platform-agnostic APIs. The overall design is represented by the diagram below (focused on Arm-related drivers as an example, but applicable to any architecture): +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | Thermal (IPA) | | Scheduler (EAS) | | Other | +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | | em_pd_energy() | | | em_cpu_get() | +-----------+ | +--------+ | | | v v v +---------------------+ | | | Energy Model | | | | Framework | | | +---------------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | em_register_perf_domain() +----------+ | +---------+ | | | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | cpufreq-dt | | arm_scmi | | Other | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | Device Tree | | Firmware | | ? | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ Drivers (typically, but not limited to, CPUFreq drivers) can register data in the EM framework using the em_register_perf_domain() API. The calling driver must provide a callback function with a standardized signature that will be used by the EM framework to build the power cost tables of the performance domain. This design should offer a lot of flexibility to calling drivers which are free of reading information from any location and to use any technique to compute power costs. Moreover, the capacity states registered by drivers in the EM framework are not required to match real performance states of the target. This is particularly important on targets where the performance states are not known by the OS. The power cost coefficients managed by the EM framework are specified in milli-watts. Although the two potential users of those coefficients (IPA and EAS) only need relative correctness, IPA specifically needs to compare the power of CPUs with the power of other components (GPUs, for example), which are still expressed in absolute terms in their respective subsystems. Hence, specifying the power of CPUs in milli-watts should help transitioning IPA to using the EM framework without introducing new problems by keeping units comparable across sub-systems. On the longer term, the EM of other devices than CPUs could also be managed by the EM framework, which would enable to remove the absolute unit. However, this is not absolutely required as a first step, so this extension of the EM framework is left for later. On the client side, the EM framework offers APIs to access the power cost tables of a CPU (em_cpu_get()), and to estimate the energy consumed by the CPUs of a performance domain (em_pd_energy()). Clients such as the task scheduler can then use these APIs to access the shared data structures holding the Energy Model of CPUs. Signed-off-by: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: adharmap@codeaurora.org Cc: chris.redpath@arm.com Cc: currojerez@riseup.net Cc: dietmar.eggemann@arm.com Cc: edubezval@gmail.com Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Cc: javi.merino@kernel.org Cc: joel@joelfernandes.org Cc: juri.lelli@redhat.com Cc: morten.rasmussen@arm.com Cc: patrick.bellasi@arm.com Cc: pkondeti@codeaurora.org Cc: skannan@codeaurora.org Cc: smuckle@google.com Cc: srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com Cc: thara.gopinath@linaro.org Cc: tkjos@google.com Cc: valentin.schneider@arm.com Cc: vincent.guittot@linaro.org Cc: viresh.kumar@linaro.org Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181203095628.11858-4-quentin.perret@arm.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2018-12-03 12:56:16 +03:00
unsigned long frequency;
unsigned long power;
unsigned long cost;
unsigned long flags;
PM: Introduce an Energy Model management framework Several subsystems in the kernel (task scheduler and/or thermal at the time of writing) can benefit from knowing about the energy consumed by CPUs. Yet, this information can come from different sources (DT or firmware for example), in different formats, hence making it hard to exploit without a standard API. As an attempt to address this, introduce a centralized Energy Model (EM) management framework which aggregates the power values provided by drivers into a table for each performance domain in the system. The power cost tables are made available to interested clients (e.g. task scheduler or thermal) via platform-agnostic APIs. The overall design is represented by the diagram below (focused on Arm-related drivers as an example, but applicable to any architecture): +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | Thermal (IPA) | | Scheduler (EAS) | | Other | +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | | em_pd_energy() | | | em_cpu_get() | +-----------+ | +--------+ | | | v v v +---------------------+ | | | Energy Model | | | | Framework | | | +---------------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | em_register_perf_domain() +----------+ | +---------+ | | | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | cpufreq-dt | | arm_scmi | | Other | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | Device Tree | | Firmware | | ? | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ Drivers (typically, but not limited to, CPUFreq drivers) can register data in the EM framework using the em_register_perf_domain() API. The calling driver must provide a callback function with a standardized signature that will be used by the EM framework to build the power cost tables of the performance domain. This design should offer a lot of flexibility to calling drivers which are free of reading information from any location and to use any technique to compute power costs. Moreover, the capacity states registered by drivers in the EM framework are not required to match real performance states of the target. This is particularly important on targets where the performance states are not known by the OS. The power cost coefficients managed by the EM framework are specified in milli-watts. Although the two potential users of those coefficients (IPA and EAS) only need relative correctness, IPA specifically needs to compare the power of CPUs with the power of other components (GPUs, for example), which are still expressed in absolute terms in their respective subsystems. Hence, specifying the power of CPUs in milli-watts should help transitioning IPA to using the EM framework without introducing new problems by keeping units comparable across sub-systems. On the longer term, the EM of other devices than CPUs could also be managed by the EM framework, which would enable to remove the absolute unit. However, this is not absolutely required as a first step, so this extension of the EM framework is left for later. On the client side, the EM framework offers APIs to access the power cost tables of a CPU (em_cpu_get()), and to estimate the energy consumed by the CPUs of a performance domain (em_pd_energy()). Clients such as the task scheduler can then use these APIs to access the shared data structures holding the Energy Model of CPUs. Signed-off-by: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: adharmap@codeaurora.org Cc: chris.redpath@arm.com Cc: currojerez@riseup.net Cc: dietmar.eggemann@arm.com Cc: edubezval@gmail.com Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Cc: javi.merino@kernel.org Cc: joel@joelfernandes.org Cc: juri.lelli@redhat.com Cc: morten.rasmussen@arm.com Cc: patrick.bellasi@arm.com Cc: pkondeti@codeaurora.org Cc: skannan@codeaurora.org Cc: smuckle@google.com Cc: srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com Cc: thara.gopinath@linaro.org Cc: tkjos@google.com Cc: valentin.schneider@arm.com Cc: vincent.guittot@linaro.org Cc: viresh.kumar@linaro.org Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181203095628.11858-4-quentin.perret@arm.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2018-12-03 12:56:16 +03:00
};
/*
* em_perf_state flags:
*
* EM_PERF_STATE_INEFFICIENT: The performance state is inefficient. There is
* in this em_perf_domain, another performance state with a higher frequency
* but a lower or equal power cost. Such inefficient states are ignored when
* using em_pd_get_efficient_*() functions.
*/
#define EM_PERF_STATE_INEFFICIENT BIT(0)
PM: Introduce an Energy Model management framework Several subsystems in the kernel (task scheduler and/or thermal at the time of writing) can benefit from knowing about the energy consumed by CPUs. Yet, this information can come from different sources (DT or firmware for example), in different formats, hence making it hard to exploit without a standard API. As an attempt to address this, introduce a centralized Energy Model (EM) management framework which aggregates the power values provided by drivers into a table for each performance domain in the system. The power cost tables are made available to interested clients (e.g. task scheduler or thermal) via platform-agnostic APIs. The overall design is represented by the diagram below (focused on Arm-related drivers as an example, but applicable to any architecture): +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | Thermal (IPA) | | Scheduler (EAS) | | Other | +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | | em_pd_energy() | | | em_cpu_get() | +-----------+ | +--------+ | | | v v v +---------------------+ | | | Energy Model | | | | Framework | | | +---------------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | em_register_perf_domain() +----------+ | +---------+ | | | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | cpufreq-dt | | arm_scmi | | Other | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | Device Tree | | Firmware | | ? | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ Drivers (typically, but not limited to, CPUFreq drivers) can register data in the EM framework using the em_register_perf_domain() API. The calling driver must provide a callback function with a standardized signature that will be used by the EM framework to build the power cost tables of the performance domain. This design should offer a lot of flexibility to calling drivers which are free of reading information from any location and to use any technique to compute power costs. Moreover, the capacity states registered by drivers in the EM framework are not required to match real performance states of the target. This is particularly important on targets where the performance states are not known by the OS. The power cost coefficients managed by the EM framework are specified in milli-watts. Although the two potential users of those coefficients (IPA and EAS) only need relative correctness, IPA specifically needs to compare the power of CPUs with the power of other components (GPUs, for example), which are still expressed in absolute terms in their respective subsystems. Hence, specifying the power of CPUs in milli-watts should help transitioning IPA to using the EM framework without introducing new problems by keeping units comparable across sub-systems. On the longer term, the EM of other devices than CPUs could also be managed by the EM framework, which would enable to remove the absolute unit. However, this is not absolutely required as a first step, so this extension of the EM framework is left for later. On the client side, the EM framework offers APIs to access the power cost tables of a CPU (em_cpu_get()), and to estimate the energy consumed by the CPUs of a performance domain (em_pd_energy()). Clients such as the task scheduler can then use these APIs to access the shared data structures holding the Energy Model of CPUs. Signed-off-by: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: adharmap@codeaurora.org Cc: chris.redpath@arm.com Cc: currojerez@riseup.net Cc: dietmar.eggemann@arm.com Cc: edubezval@gmail.com Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Cc: javi.merino@kernel.org Cc: joel@joelfernandes.org Cc: juri.lelli@redhat.com Cc: morten.rasmussen@arm.com Cc: patrick.bellasi@arm.com Cc: pkondeti@codeaurora.org Cc: skannan@codeaurora.org Cc: smuckle@google.com Cc: srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com Cc: thara.gopinath@linaro.org Cc: tkjos@google.com Cc: valentin.schneider@arm.com Cc: vincent.guittot@linaro.org Cc: viresh.kumar@linaro.org Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181203095628.11858-4-quentin.perret@arm.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2018-12-03 12:56:16 +03:00
/**
* struct em_perf_domain - Performance domain
* @table: List of performance states, in ascending order
* @nr_perf_states: Number of performance states
* @flags: See "em_perf_domain flags"
* @cpus: Cpumask covering the CPUs of the domain. It's here
* for performance reasons to avoid potential cache
* misses during energy calculations in the scheduler
* and simplifies allocating/freeing that memory region.
PM: Introduce an Energy Model management framework Several subsystems in the kernel (task scheduler and/or thermal at the time of writing) can benefit from knowing about the energy consumed by CPUs. Yet, this information can come from different sources (DT or firmware for example), in different formats, hence making it hard to exploit without a standard API. As an attempt to address this, introduce a centralized Energy Model (EM) management framework which aggregates the power values provided by drivers into a table for each performance domain in the system. The power cost tables are made available to interested clients (e.g. task scheduler or thermal) via platform-agnostic APIs. The overall design is represented by the diagram below (focused on Arm-related drivers as an example, but applicable to any architecture): +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | Thermal (IPA) | | Scheduler (EAS) | | Other | +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | | em_pd_energy() | | | em_cpu_get() | +-----------+ | +--------+ | | | v v v +---------------------+ | | | Energy Model | | | | Framework | | | +---------------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | em_register_perf_domain() +----------+ | +---------+ | | | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | cpufreq-dt | | arm_scmi | | Other | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | Device Tree | | Firmware | | ? | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ Drivers (typically, but not limited to, CPUFreq drivers) can register data in the EM framework using the em_register_perf_domain() API. The calling driver must provide a callback function with a standardized signature that will be used by the EM framework to build the power cost tables of the performance domain. This design should offer a lot of flexibility to calling drivers which are free of reading information from any location and to use any technique to compute power costs. Moreover, the capacity states registered by drivers in the EM framework are not required to match real performance states of the target. This is particularly important on targets where the performance states are not known by the OS. The power cost coefficients managed by the EM framework are specified in milli-watts. Although the two potential users of those coefficients (IPA and EAS) only need relative correctness, IPA specifically needs to compare the power of CPUs with the power of other components (GPUs, for example), which are still expressed in absolute terms in their respective subsystems. Hence, specifying the power of CPUs in milli-watts should help transitioning IPA to using the EM framework without introducing new problems by keeping units comparable across sub-systems. On the longer term, the EM of other devices than CPUs could also be managed by the EM framework, which would enable to remove the absolute unit. However, this is not absolutely required as a first step, so this extension of the EM framework is left for later. On the client side, the EM framework offers APIs to access the power cost tables of a CPU (em_cpu_get()), and to estimate the energy consumed by the CPUs of a performance domain (em_pd_energy()). Clients such as the task scheduler can then use these APIs to access the shared data structures holding the Energy Model of CPUs. Signed-off-by: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: adharmap@codeaurora.org Cc: chris.redpath@arm.com Cc: currojerez@riseup.net Cc: dietmar.eggemann@arm.com Cc: edubezval@gmail.com Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Cc: javi.merino@kernel.org Cc: joel@joelfernandes.org Cc: juri.lelli@redhat.com Cc: morten.rasmussen@arm.com Cc: patrick.bellasi@arm.com Cc: pkondeti@codeaurora.org Cc: skannan@codeaurora.org Cc: smuckle@google.com Cc: srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com Cc: thara.gopinath@linaro.org Cc: tkjos@google.com Cc: valentin.schneider@arm.com Cc: vincent.guittot@linaro.org Cc: viresh.kumar@linaro.org Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181203095628.11858-4-quentin.perret@arm.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2018-12-03 12:56:16 +03:00
*
* In case of CPU device, a "performance domain" represents a group of CPUs
* whose performance is scaled together. All CPUs of a performance domain
* must have the same micro-architecture. Performance domains often have
* a 1-to-1 mapping with CPUFreq policies. In case of other devices the @cpus
* field is unused.
PM: Introduce an Energy Model management framework Several subsystems in the kernel (task scheduler and/or thermal at the time of writing) can benefit from knowing about the energy consumed by CPUs. Yet, this information can come from different sources (DT or firmware for example), in different formats, hence making it hard to exploit without a standard API. As an attempt to address this, introduce a centralized Energy Model (EM) management framework which aggregates the power values provided by drivers into a table for each performance domain in the system. The power cost tables are made available to interested clients (e.g. task scheduler or thermal) via platform-agnostic APIs. The overall design is represented by the diagram below (focused on Arm-related drivers as an example, but applicable to any architecture): +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | Thermal (IPA) | | Scheduler (EAS) | | Other | +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | | em_pd_energy() | | | em_cpu_get() | +-----------+ | +--------+ | | | v v v +---------------------+ | | | Energy Model | | | | Framework | | | +---------------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | em_register_perf_domain() +----------+ | +---------+ | | | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | cpufreq-dt | | arm_scmi | | Other | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | Device Tree | | Firmware | | ? | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ Drivers (typically, but not limited to, CPUFreq drivers) can register data in the EM framework using the em_register_perf_domain() API. The calling driver must provide a callback function with a standardized signature that will be used by the EM framework to build the power cost tables of the performance domain. This design should offer a lot of flexibility to calling drivers which are free of reading information from any location and to use any technique to compute power costs. Moreover, the capacity states registered by drivers in the EM framework are not required to match real performance states of the target. This is particularly important on targets where the performance states are not known by the OS. The power cost coefficients managed by the EM framework are specified in milli-watts. Although the two potential users of those coefficients (IPA and EAS) only need relative correctness, IPA specifically needs to compare the power of CPUs with the power of other components (GPUs, for example), which are still expressed in absolute terms in their respective subsystems. Hence, specifying the power of CPUs in milli-watts should help transitioning IPA to using the EM framework without introducing new problems by keeping units comparable across sub-systems. On the longer term, the EM of other devices than CPUs could also be managed by the EM framework, which would enable to remove the absolute unit. However, this is not absolutely required as a first step, so this extension of the EM framework is left for later. On the client side, the EM framework offers APIs to access the power cost tables of a CPU (em_cpu_get()), and to estimate the energy consumed by the CPUs of a performance domain (em_pd_energy()). Clients such as the task scheduler can then use these APIs to access the shared data structures holding the Energy Model of CPUs. Signed-off-by: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: adharmap@codeaurora.org Cc: chris.redpath@arm.com Cc: currojerez@riseup.net Cc: dietmar.eggemann@arm.com Cc: edubezval@gmail.com Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Cc: javi.merino@kernel.org Cc: joel@joelfernandes.org Cc: juri.lelli@redhat.com Cc: morten.rasmussen@arm.com Cc: patrick.bellasi@arm.com Cc: pkondeti@codeaurora.org Cc: skannan@codeaurora.org Cc: smuckle@google.com Cc: srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com Cc: thara.gopinath@linaro.org Cc: tkjos@google.com Cc: valentin.schneider@arm.com Cc: vincent.guittot@linaro.org Cc: viresh.kumar@linaro.org Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181203095628.11858-4-quentin.perret@arm.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2018-12-03 12:56:16 +03:00
*/
struct em_perf_domain {
struct em_perf_state *table;
int nr_perf_states;
unsigned long flags;
unsigned long cpus[];
PM: Introduce an Energy Model management framework Several subsystems in the kernel (task scheduler and/or thermal at the time of writing) can benefit from knowing about the energy consumed by CPUs. Yet, this information can come from different sources (DT or firmware for example), in different formats, hence making it hard to exploit without a standard API. As an attempt to address this, introduce a centralized Energy Model (EM) management framework which aggregates the power values provided by drivers into a table for each performance domain in the system. The power cost tables are made available to interested clients (e.g. task scheduler or thermal) via platform-agnostic APIs. The overall design is represented by the diagram below (focused on Arm-related drivers as an example, but applicable to any architecture): +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | Thermal (IPA) | | Scheduler (EAS) | | Other | +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | | em_pd_energy() | | | em_cpu_get() | +-----------+ | +--------+ | | | v v v +---------------------+ | | | Energy Model | | | | Framework | | | +---------------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | em_register_perf_domain() +----------+ | +---------+ | | | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | cpufreq-dt | | arm_scmi | | Other | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | Device Tree | | Firmware | | ? | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ Drivers (typically, but not limited to, CPUFreq drivers) can register data in the EM framework using the em_register_perf_domain() API. The calling driver must provide a callback function with a standardized signature that will be used by the EM framework to build the power cost tables of the performance domain. This design should offer a lot of flexibility to calling drivers which are free of reading information from any location and to use any technique to compute power costs. Moreover, the capacity states registered by drivers in the EM framework are not required to match real performance states of the target. This is particularly important on targets where the performance states are not known by the OS. The power cost coefficients managed by the EM framework are specified in milli-watts. Although the two potential users of those coefficients (IPA and EAS) only need relative correctness, IPA specifically needs to compare the power of CPUs with the power of other components (GPUs, for example), which are still expressed in absolute terms in their respective subsystems. Hence, specifying the power of CPUs in milli-watts should help transitioning IPA to using the EM framework without introducing new problems by keeping units comparable across sub-systems. On the longer term, the EM of other devices than CPUs could also be managed by the EM framework, which would enable to remove the absolute unit. However, this is not absolutely required as a first step, so this extension of the EM framework is left for later. On the client side, the EM framework offers APIs to access the power cost tables of a CPU (em_cpu_get()), and to estimate the energy consumed by the CPUs of a performance domain (em_pd_energy()). Clients such as the task scheduler can then use these APIs to access the shared data structures holding the Energy Model of CPUs. Signed-off-by: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: adharmap@codeaurora.org Cc: chris.redpath@arm.com Cc: currojerez@riseup.net Cc: dietmar.eggemann@arm.com Cc: edubezval@gmail.com Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Cc: javi.merino@kernel.org Cc: joel@joelfernandes.org Cc: juri.lelli@redhat.com Cc: morten.rasmussen@arm.com Cc: patrick.bellasi@arm.com Cc: pkondeti@codeaurora.org Cc: skannan@codeaurora.org Cc: smuckle@google.com Cc: srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com Cc: thara.gopinath@linaro.org Cc: tkjos@google.com Cc: valentin.schneider@arm.com Cc: vincent.guittot@linaro.org Cc: viresh.kumar@linaro.org Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181203095628.11858-4-quentin.perret@arm.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2018-12-03 12:56:16 +03:00
};
/*
* em_perf_domain flags:
*
PM: EM: convert power field to micro-Watts precision and align drivers The milli-Watts precision causes rounding errors while calculating efficiency cost for each OPP. This is especially visible in the 'simple' Energy Model (EM), where the power for each OPP is provided from OPP framework. This can cause some OPPs to be marked inefficient, while using micro-Watts precision that might not happen. Update all EM users which access 'power' field and assume the value is in milli-Watts. Solve also an issue with potential overflow in calculation of energy estimation on 32bit machine. It's needed now since the power value (thus the 'cost' as well) are higher. Example calculation which shows the rounding error and impact: power = 'dyn-power-coeff' * volt_mV * volt_mV * freq_MHz power_a_uW = (100 * 600mW * 600mW * 500MHz) / 10^6 = 18000 power_a_mW = (100 * 600mW * 600mW * 500MHz) / 10^9 = 18 power_b_uW = (100 * 605mW * 605mW * 600MHz) / 10^6 = 21961 power_b_mW = (100 * 605mW * 605mW * 600MHz) / 10^9 = 21 max_freq = 2000MHz cost_a_mW = 18 * 2000MHz/500MHz = 72 cost_a_uW = 18000 * 2000MHz/500MHz = 72000 cost_b_mW = 21 * 2000MHz/600MHz = 70 // <- artificially better cost_b_uW = 21961 * 2000MHz/600MHz = 73203 The 'cost_b_mW' (which is based on old milli-Watts) is misleadingly better that the 'cost_b_uW' (this patch uses micro-Watts) and such would have impact on the 'inefficient OPPs' information in the Cpufreq framework. This patch set removes the rounding issue. Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com> Acked-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
2022-07-07 10:15:52 +03:00
* EM_PERF_DOMAIN_MICROWATTS: The power values are in micro-Watts or some
* other scale.
*
* EM_PERF_DOMAIN_SKIP_INEFFICIENCIES: Skip inefficient states when estimating
* energy consumption.
*
* EM_PERF_DOMAIN_ARTIFICIAL: The power values are artificial and might be
* created by platform missing real power information
*/
PM: EM: convert power field to micro-Watts precision and align drivers The milli-Watts precision causes rounding errors while calculating efficiency cost for each OPP. This is especially visible in the 'simple' Energy Model (EM), where the power for each OPP is provided from OPP framework. This can cause some OPPs to be marked inefficient, while using micro-Watts precision that might not happen. Update all EM users which access 'power' field and assume the value is in milli-Watts. Solve also an issue with potential overflow in calculation of energy estimation on 32bit machine. It's needed now since the power value (thus the 'cost' as well) are higher. Example calculation which shows the rounding error and impact: power = 'dyn-power-coeff' * volt_mV * volt_mV * freq_MHz power_a_uW = (100 * 600mW * 600mW * 500MHz) / 10^6 = 18000 power_a_mW = (100 * 600mW * 600mW * 500MHz) / 10^9 = 18 power_b_uW = (100 * 605mW * 605mW * 600MHz) / 10^6 = 21961 power_b_mW = (100 * 605mW * 605mW * 600MHz) / 10^9 = 21 max_freq = 2000MHz cost_a_mW = 18 * 2000MHz/500MHz = 72 cost_a_uW = 18000 * 2000MHz/500MHz = 72000 cost_b_mW = 21 * 2000MHz/600MHz = 70 // <- artificially better cost_b_uW = 21961 * 2000MHz/600MHz = 73203 The 'cost_b_mW' (which is based on old milli-Watts) is misleadingly better that the 'cost_b_uW' (this patch uses micro-Watts) and such would have impact on the 'inefficient OPPs' information in the Cpufreq framework. This patch set removes the rounding issue. Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com> Acked-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
2022-07-07 10:15:52 +03:00
#define EM_PERF_DOMAIN_MICROWATTS BIT(0)
#define EM_PERF_DOMAIN_SKIP_INEFFICIENCIES BIT(1)
#define EM_PERF_DOMAIN_ARTIFICIAL BIT(2)
#define em_span_cpus(em) (to_cpumask((em)->cpus))
#define em_is_artificial(em) ((em)->flags & EM_PERF_DOMAIN_ARTIFICIAL)
#ifdef CONFIG_ENERGY_MODEL
PM: EM: convert power field to micro-Watts precision and align drivers The milli-Watts precision causes rounding errors while calculating efficiency cost for each OPP. This is especially visible in the 'simple' Energy Model (EM), where the power for each OPP is provided from OPP framework. This can cause some OPPs to be marked inefficient, while using micro-Watts precision that might not happen. Update all EM users which access 'power' field and assume the value is in milli-Watts. Solve also an issue with potential overflow in calculation of energy estimation on 32bit machine. It's needed now since the power value (thus the 'cost' as well) are higher. Example calculation which shows the rounding error and impact: power = 'dyn-power-coeff' * volt_mV * volt_mV * freq_MHz power_a_uW = (100 * 600mW * 600mW * 500MHz) / 10^6 = 18000 power_a_mW = (100 * 600mW * 600mW * 500MHz) / 10^9 = 18 power_b_uW = (100 * 605mW * 605mW * 600MHz) / 10^6 = 21961 power_b_mW = (100 * 605mW * 605mW * 600MHz) / 10^9 = 21 max_freq = 2000MHz cost_a_mW = 18 * 2000MHz/500MHz = 72 cost_a_uW = 18000 * 2000MHz/500MHz = 72000 cost_b_mW = 21 * 2000MHz/600MHz = 70 // <- artificially better cost_b_uW = 21961 * 2000MHz/600MHz = 73203 The 'cost_b_mW' (which is based on old milli-Watts) is misleadingly better that the 'cost_b_uW' (this patch uses micro-Watts) and such would have impact on the 'inefficient OPPs' information in the Cpufreq framework. This patch set removes the rounding issue. Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com> Acked-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
2022-07-07 10:15:52 +03:00
/*
* The max power value in micro-Watts. The limit of 64 Watts is set as
* a safety net to not overflow multiplications on 32bit platforms. The
* 32bit value limit for total Perf Domain power implies a limit of
* maximum CPUs in such domain to 64.
*/
#define EM_MAX_POWER (64000000) /* 64 Watts */
/*
* To avoid possible energy estimation overflow on 32bit machines add
* limits to number of CPUs in the Perf. Domain.
* We are safe on 64bit machine, thus some big number.
*/
#ifdef CONFIG_64BIT
#define EM_MAX_NUM_CPUS 4096
#else
#define EM_MAX_NUM_CPUS 16
#endif
PM: Introduce an Energy Model management framework Several subsystems in the kernel (task scheduler and/or thermal at the time of writing) can benefit from knowing about the energy consumed by CPUs. Yet, this information can come from different sources (DT or firmware for example), in different formats, hence making it hard to exploit without a standard API. As an attempt to address this, introduce a centralized Energy Model (EM) management framework which aggregates the power values provided by drivers into a table for each performance domain in the system. The power cost tables are made available to interested clients (e.g. task scheduler or thermal) via platform-agnostic APIs. The overall design is represented by the diagram below (focused on Arm-related drivers as an example, but applicable to any architecture): +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | Thermal (IPA) | | Scheduler (EAS) | | Other | +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | | em_pd_energy() | | | em_cpu_get() | +-----------+ | +--------+ | | | v v v +---------------------+ | | | Energy Model | | | | Framework | | | +---------------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | em_register_perf_domain() +----------+ | +---------+ | | | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | cpufreq-dt | | arm_scmi | | Other | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | Device Tree | | Firmware | | ? | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ Drivers (typically, but not limited to, CPUFreq drivers) can register data in the EM framework using the em_register_perf_domain() API. The calling driver must provide a callback function with a standardized signature that will be used by the EM framework to build the power cost tables of the performance domain. This design should offer a lot of flexibility to calling drivers which are free of reading information from any location and to use any technique to compute power costs. Moreover, the capacity states registered by drivers in the EM framework are not required to match real performance states of the target. This is particularly important on targets where the performance states are not known by the OS. The power cost coefficients managed by the EM framework are specified in milli-watts. Although the two potential users of those coefficients (IPA and EAS) only need relative correctness, IPA specifically needs to compare the power of CPUs with the power of other components (GPUs, for example), which are still expressed in absolute terms in their respective subsystems. Hence, specifying the power of CPUs in milli-watts should help transitioning IPA to using the EM framework without introducing new problems by keeping units comparable across sub-systems. On the longer term, the EM of other devices than CPUs could also be managed by the EM framework, which would enable to remove the absolute unit. However, this is not absolutely required as a first step, so this extension of the EM framework is left for later. On the client side, the EM framework offers APIs to access the power cost tables of a CPU (em_cpu_get()), and to estimate the energy consumed by the CPUs of a performance domain (em_pd_energy()). Clients such as the task scheduler can then use these APIs to access the shared data structures holding the Energy Model of CPUs. Signed-off-by: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: adharmap@codeaurora.org Cc: chris.redpath@arm.com Cc: currojerez@riseup.net Cc: dietmar.eggemann@arm.com Cc: edubezval@gmail.com Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Cc: javi.merino@kernel.org Cc: joel@joelfernandes.org Cc: juri.lelli@redhat.com Cc: morten.rasmussen@arm.com Cc: patrick.bellasi@arm.com Cc: pkondeti@codeaurora.org Cc: skannan@codeaurora.org Cc: smuckle@google.com Cc: srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com Cc: thara.gopinath@linaro.org Cc: tkjos@google.com Cc: valentin.schneider@arm.com Cc: vincent.guittot@linaro.org Cc: viresh.kumar@linaro.org Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181203095628.11858-4-quentin.perret@arm.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2018-12-03 12:56:16 +03:00
PM: EM: Increase energy calculation precision The Energy Model (EM) provides useful information about device power in each performance state to other subsystems like: Energy Aware Scheduler (EAS). The energy calculation in EAS does arithmetic operation based on the EM em_cpu_energy(). Current implementation of that function uses em_perf_state::cost as a pre-computed cost coefficient equal to: cost = power * max_frequency / frequency. The 'power' is expressed in milli-Watts (or in abstract scale). There are corner cases when the EAS energy calculation for two Performance Domains (PDs) return the same value. The EAS compares these values to choose smaller one. It might happen that this values are equal due to rounding error. In such scenario, we need better resolution, e.g. 1000 times better. To provide this possibility increase the resolution in the em_perf_state::cost for 64-bit architectures. The cost of increasing resolution on 32-bit is pretty high (64-bit division) and is not justified since there are no new 32bit big.LITTLE EAS systems expected which would benefit from this higher resolution. This patch allows to avoid the rounding to milli-Watt errors, which might occur in EAS energy estimation for each PD. The rounding error is common for small tasks which have small utilization value. There are two places in the code where it makes a difference: 1. In the find_energy_efficient_cpu() where we are searching for best_delta. We might suffer there when two PDs return the same result, like in the example below. Scenario: Low utilized system e.g. ~200 sum_util for PD0 and ~220 for PD1. There are quite a few small tasks ~10-15 util. These tasks would suffer for the rounding error. These utilization values are typical when running games on Android. One of our partners has reported 5..10mA less battery drain when running with increased resolution. Some details: We have two PDs: PD0 (big) and PD1 (little) Let's compare w/o patch set ('old') and w/ patch set ('new') We are comparing energy w/ task and w/o task placed in the PDs a) 'old' w/o patch set, PD0 task_util = 13 cost = 480 sum_util_w/o_task = 215 sum_util_w_task = 228 scale_cpu = 1024 energy_w/o_task = 480 * 215 / 1024 = 100.78 => 100 energy_w_task = 480 * 228 / 1024 = 106.87 => 106 energy_diff = 106 - 100 = 6 (this is equal to 'old' PD1's energy_diff in 'c)') b) 'new' w/ patch set, PD0 task_util = 13 cost = 480 * 1000 = 480000 sum_util_w/o_task = 215 sum_util_w_task = 228 energy_w/o_task = 480000 * 215 / 1024 = 100781 energy_w_task = 480000 * 228 / 1024 = 106875 energy_diff = 106875 - 100781 = 6094 (this is not equal to 'new' PD1's energy_diff in 'd)') c) 'old' w/o patch set, PD1 task_util = 13 cost = 160 sum_util_w/o_task = 283 sum_util_w_task = 293 scale_cpu = 355 energy_w/o_task = 160 * 283 / 355 = 127.55 => 127 energy_w_task = 160 * 296 / 355 = 133.41 => 133 energy_diff = 133 - 127 = 6 (this is equal to 'old' PD0's energy_diff in 'a)') d) 'new' w/ patch set, PD1 task_util = 13 cost = 160 * 1000 = 160000 sum_util_w/o_task = 283 sum_util_w_task = 293 scale_cpu = 355 energy_w/o_task = 160000 * 283 / 355 = 127549 energy_w_task = 160000 * 296 / 355 = 133408 energy_diff = 133408 - 127549 = 5859 (this is not equal to 'new' PD0's energy_diff in 'b)') 2. Difference in the 6% energy margin filter at the end of find_energy_efficient_cpu(). With this patch the margin comparison also has better resolution, so it's possible to have better task placement thanks to that. Fixes: 27871f7a8a341ef ("PM: Introduce an Energy Model management framework") Reported-by: CCJ Yeh <CCj.Yeh@mediatek.com> Reviewed-by: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
2021-08-03 13:27:43 +03:00
/*
PM: EM: convert power field to micro-Watts precision and align drivers The milli-Watts precision causes rounding errors while calculating efficiency cost for each OPP. This is especially visible in the 'simple' Energy Model (EM), where the power for each OPP is provided from OPP framework. This can cause some OPPs to be marked inefficient, while using micro-Watts precision that might not happen. Update all EM users which access 'power' field and assume the value is in milli-Watts. Solve also an issue with potential overflow in calculation of energy estimation on 32bit machine. It's needed now since the power value (thus the 'cost' as well) are higher. Example calculation which shows the rounding error and impact: power = 'dyn-power-coeff' * volt_mV * volt_mV * freq_MHz power_a_uW = (100 * 600mW * 600mW * 500MHz) / 10^6 = 18000 power_a_mW = (100 * 600mW * 600mW * 500MHz) / 10^9 = 18 power_b_uW = (100 * 605mW * 605mW * 600MHz) / 10^6 = 21961 power_b_mW = (100 * 605mW * 605mW * 600MHz) / 10^9 = 21 max_freq = 2000MHz cost_a_mW = 18 * 2000MHz/500MHz = 72 cost_a_uW = 18000 * 2000MHz/500MHz = 72000 cost_b_mW = 21 * 2000MHz/600MHz = 70 // <- artificially better cost_b_uW = 21961 * 2000MHz/600MHz = 73203 The 'cost_b_mW' (which is based on old milli-Watts) is misleadingly better that the 'cost_b_uW' (this patch uses micro-Watts) and such would have impact on the 'inefficient OPPs' information in the Cpufreq framework. This patch set removes the rounding issue. Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com> Acked-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
2022-07-07 10:15:52 +03:00
* To avoid an overflow on 32bit machines while calculating the energy
* use a different order in the operation. First divide by the 'cpu_scale'
* which would reduce big value stored in the 'cost' field, then multiply by
* the 'sum_util'. This would allow to handle existing platforms, which have
* e.g. power ~1.3 Watt at max freq, so the 'cost' value > 1mln micro-Watts.
* In such scenario, where there are 4 CPUs in the Perf. Domain the 'sum_util'
* could be 4096, then multiplication: 'cost' * 'sum_util' would overflow.
* This reordering of operations has some limitations, we lose small
* precision in the estimation (comparing to 64bit platform w/o reordering).
PM: EM: Increase energy calculation precision The Energy Model (EM) provides useful information about device power in each performance state to other subsystems like: Energy Aware Scheduler (EAS). The energy calculation in EAS does arithmetic operation based on the EM em_cpu_energy(). Current implementation of that function uses em_perf_state::cost as a pre-computed cost coefficient equal to: cost = power * max_frequency / frequency. The 'power' is expressed in milli-Watts (or in abstract scale). There are corner cases when the EAS energy calculation for two Performance Domains (PDs) return the same value. The EAS compares these values to choose smaller one. It might happen that this values are equal due to rounding error. In such scenario, we need better resolution, e.g. 1000 times better. To provide this possibility increase the resolution in the em_perf_state::cost for 64-bit architectures. The cost of increasing resolution on 32-bit is pretty high (64-bit division) and is not justified since there are no new 32bit big.LITTLE EAS systems expected which would benefit from this higher resolution. This patch allows to avoid the rounding to milli-Watt errors, which might occur in EAS energy estimation for each PD. The rounding error is common for small tasks which have small utilization value. There are two places in the code where it makes a difference: 1. In the find_energy_efficient_cpu() where we are searching for best_delta. We might suffer there when two PDs return the same result, like in the example below. Scenario: Low utilized system e.g. ~200 sum_util for PD0 and ~220 for PD1. There are quite a few small tasks ~10-15 util. These tasks would suffer for the rounding error. These utilization values are typical when running games on Android. One of our partners has reported 5..10mA less battery drain when running with increased resolution. Some details: We have two PDs: PD0 (big) and PD1 (little) Let's compare w/o patch set ('old') and w/ patch set ('new') We are comparing energy w/ task and w/o task placed in the PDs a) 'old' w/o patch set, PD0 task_util = 13 cost = 480 sum_util_w/o_task = 215 sum_util_w_task = 228 scale_cpu = 1024 energy_w/o_task = 480 * 215 / 1024 = 100.78 => 100 energy_w_task = 480 * 228 / 1024 = 106.87 => 106 energy_diff = 106 - 100 = 6 (this is equal to 'old' PD1's energy_diff in 'c)') b) 'new' w/ patch set, PD0 task_util = 13 cost = 480 * 1000 = 480000 sum_util_w/o_task = 215 sum_util_w_task = 228 energy_w/o_task = 480000 * 215 / 1024 = 100781 energy_w_task = 480000 * 228 / 1024 = 106875 energy_diff = 106875 - 100781 = 6094 (this is not equal to 'new' PD1's energy_diff in 'd)') c) 'old' w/o patch set, PD1 task_util = 13 cost = 160 sum_util_w/o_task = 283 sum_util_w_task = 293 scale_cpu = 355 energy_w/o_task = 160 * 283 / 355 = 127.55 => 127 energy_w_task = 160 * 296 / 355 = 133.41 => 133 energy_diff = 133 - 127 = 6 (this is equal to 'old' PD0's energy_diff in 'a)') d) 'new' w/ patch set, PD1 task_util = 13 cost = 160 * 1000 = 160000 sum_util_w/o_task = 283 sum_util_w_task = 293 scale_cpu = 355 energy_w/o_task = 160000 * 283 / 355 = 127549 energy_w_task = 160000 * 296 / 355 = 133408 energy_diff = 133408 - 127549 = 5859 (this is not equal to 'new' PD0's energy_diff in 'b)') 2. Difference in the 6% energy margin filter at the end of find_energy_efficient_cpu(). With this patch the margin comparison also has better resolution, so it's possible to have better task placement thanks to that. Fixes: 27871f7a8a341ef ("PM: Introduce an Energy Model management framework") Reported-by: CCJ Yeh <CCj.Yeh@mediatek.com> Reviewed-by: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
2021-08-03 13:27:43 +03:00
*
PM: EM: convert power field to micro-Watts precision and align drivers The milli-Watts precision causes rounding errors while calculating efficiency cost for each OPP. This is especially visible in the 'simple' Energy Model (EM), where the power for each OPP is provided from OPP framework. This can cause some OPPs to be marked inefficient, while using micro-Watts precision that might not happen. Update all EM users which access 'power' field and assume the value is in milli-Watts. Solve also an issue with potential overflow in calculation of energy estimation on 32bit machine. It's needed now since the power value (thus the 'cost' as well) are higher. Example calculation which shows the rounding error and impact: power = 'dyn-power-coeff' * volt_mV * volt_mV * freq_MHz power_a_uW = (100 * 600mW * 600mW * 500MHz) / 10^6 = 18000 power_a_mW = (100 * 600mW * 600mW * 500MHz) / 10^9 = 18 power_b_uW = (100 * 605mW * 605mW * 600MHz) / 10^6 = 21961 power_b_mW = (100 * 605mW * 605mW * 600MHz) / 10^9 = 21 max_freq = 2000MHz cost_a_mW = 18 * 2000MHz/500MHz = 72 cost_a_uW = 18000 * 2000MHz/500MHz = 72000 cost_b_mW = 21 * 2000MHz/600MHz = 70 // <- artificially better cost_b_uW = 21961 * 2000MHz/600MHz = 73203 The 'cost_b_mW' (which is based on old milli-Watts) is misleadingly better that the 'cost_b_uW' (this patch uses micro-Watts) and such would have impact on the 'inefficient OPPs' information in the Cpufreq framework. This patch set removes the rounding issue. Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com> Acked-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
2022-07-07 10:15:52 +03:00
* We are safe on 64bit machine.
PM: EM: Increase energy calculation precision The Energy Model (EM) provides useful information about device power in each performance state to other subsystems like: Energy Aware Scheduler (EAS). The energy calculation in EAS does arithmetic operation based on the EM em_cpu_energy(). Current implementation of that function uses em_perf_state::cost as a pre-computed cost coefficient equal to: cost = power * max_frequency / frequency. The 'power' is expressed in milli-Watts (or in abstract scale). There are corner cases when the EAS energy calculation for two Performance Domains (PDs) return the same value. The EAS compares these values to choose smaller one. It might happen that this values are equal due to rounding error. In such scenario, we need better resolution, e.g. 1000 times better. To provide this possibility increase the resolution in the em_perf_state::cost for 64-bit architectures. The cost of increasing resolution on 32-bit is pretty high (64-bit division) and is not justified since there are no new 32bit big.LITTLE EAS systems expected which would benefit from this higher resolution. This patch allows to avoid the rounding to milli-Watt errors, which might occur in EAS energy estimation for each PD. The rounding error is common for small tasks which have small utilization value. There are two places in the code where it makes a difference: 1. In the find_energy_efficient_cpu() where we are searching for best_delta. We might suffer there when two PDs return the same result, like in the example below. Scenario: Low utilized system e.g. ~200 sum_util for PD0 and ~220 for PD1. There are quite a few small tasks ~10-15 util. These tasks would suffer for the rounding error. These utilization values are typical when running games on Android. One of our partners has reported 5..10mA less battery drain when running with increased resolution. Some details: We have two PDs: PD0 (big) and PD1 (little) Let's compare w/o patch set ('old') and w/ patch set ('new') We are comparing energy w/ task and w/o task placed in the PDs a) 'old' w/o patch set, PD0 task_util = 13 cost = 480 sum_util_w/o_task = 215 sum_util_w_task = 228 scale_cpu = 1024 energy_w/o_task = 480 * 215 / 1024 = 100.78 => 100 energy_w_task = 480 * 228 / 1024 = 106.87 => 106 energy_diff = 106 - 100 = 6 (this is equal to 'old' PD1's energy_diff in 'c)') b) 'new' w/ patch set, PD0 task_util = 13 cost = 480 * 1000 = 480000 sum_util_w/o_task = 215 sum_util_w_task = 228 energy_w/o_task = 480000 * 215 / 1024 = 100781 energy_w_task = 480000 * 228 / 1024 = 106875 energy_diff = 106875 - 100781 = 6094 (this is not equal to 'new' PD1's energy_diff in 'd)') c) 'old' w/o patch set, PD1 task_util = 13 cost = 160 sum_util_w/o_task = 283 sum_util_w_task = 293 scale_cpu = 355 energy_w/o_task = 160 * 283 / 355 = 127.55 => 127 energy_w_task = 160 * 296 / 355 = 133.41 => 133 energy_diff = 133 - 127 = 6 (this is equal to 'old' PD0's energy_diff in 'a)') d) 'new' w/ patch set, PD1 task_util = 13 cost = 160 * 1000 = 160000 sum_util_w/o_task = 283 sum_util_w_task = 293 scale_cpu = 355 energy_w/o_task = 160000 * 283 / 355 = 127549 energy_w_task = 160000 * 296 / 355 = 133408 energy_diff = 133408 - 127549 = 5859 (this is not equal to 'new' PD0's energy_diff in 'b)') 2. Difference in the 6% energy margin filter at the end of find_energy_efficient_cpu(). With this patch the margin comparison also has better resolution, so it's possible to have better task placement thanks to that. Fixes: 27871f7a8a341ef ("PM: Introduce an Energy Model management framework") Reported-by: CCJ Yeh <CCj.Yeh@mediatek.com> Reviewed-by: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
2021-08-03 13:27:43 +03:00
*/
#ifdef CONFIG_64BIT
PM: EM: convert power field to micro-Watts precision and align drivers The milli-Watts precision causes rounding errors while calculating efficiency cost for each OPP. This is especially visible in the 'simple' Energy Model (EM), where the power for each OPP is provided from OPP framework. This can cause some OPPs to be marked inefficient, while using micro-Watts precision that might not happen. Update all EM users which access 'power' field and assume the value is in milli-Watts. Solve also an issue with potential overflow in calculation of energy estimation on 32bit machine. It's needed now since the power value (thus the 'cost' as well) are higher. Example calculation which shows the rounding error and impact: power = 'dyn-power-coeff' * volt_mV * volt_mV * freq_MHz power_a_uW = (100 * 600mW * 600mW * 500MHz) / 10^6 = 18000 power_a_mW = (100 * 600mW * 600mW * 500MHz) / 10^9 = 18 power_b_uW = (100 * 605mW * 605mW * 600MHz) / 10^6 = 21961 power_b_mW = (100 * 605mW * 605mW * 600MHz) / 10^9 = 21 max_freq = 2000MHz cost_a_mW = 18 * 2000MHz/500MHz = 72 cost_a_uW = 18000 * 2000MHz/500MHz = 72000 cost_b_mW = 21 * 2000MHz/600MHz = 70 // <- artificially better cost_b_uW = 21961 * 2000MHz/600MHz = 73203 The 'cost_b_mW' (which is based on old milli-Watts) is misleadingly better that the 'cost_b_uW' (this patch uses micro-Watts) and such would have impact on the 'inefficient OPPs' information in the Cpufreq framework. This patch set removes the rounding issue. Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com> Acked-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
2022-07-07 10:15:52 +03:00
#define em_estimate_energy(cost, sum_util, scale_cpu) \
(((cost) * (sum_util)) / (scale_cpu))
PM: EM: Increase energy calculation precision The Energy Model (EM) provides useful information about device power in each performance state to other subsystems like: Energy Aware Scheduler (EAS). The energy calculation in EAS does arithmetic operation based on the EM em_cpu_energy(). Current implementation of that function uses em_perf_state::cost as a pre-computed cost coefficient equal to: cost = power * max_frequency / frequency. The 'power' is expressed in milli-Watts (or in abstract scale). There are corner cases when the EAS energy calculation for two Performance Domains (PDs) return the same value. The EAS compares these values to choose smaller one. It might happen that this values are equal due to rounding error. In such scenario, we need better resolution, e.g. 1000 times better. To provide this possibility increase the resolution in the em_perf_state::cost for 64-bit architectures. The cost of increasing resolution on 32-bit is pretty high (64-bit division) and is not justified since there are no new 32bit big.LITTLE EAS systems expected which would benefit from this higher resolution. This patch allows to avoid the rounding to milli-Watt errors, which might occur in EAS energy estimation for each PD. The rounding error is common for small tasks which have small utilization value. There are two places in the code where it makes a difference: 1. In the find_energy_efficient_cpu() where we are searching for best_delta. We might suffer there when two PDs return the same result, like in the example below. Scenario: Low utilized system e.g. ~200 sum_util for PD0 and ~220 for PD1. There are quite a few small tasks ~10-15 util. These tasks would suffer for the rounding error. These utilization values are typical when running games on Android. One of our partners has reported 5..10mA less battery drain when running with increased resolution. Some details: We have two PDs: PD0 (big) and PD1 (little) Let's compare w/o patch set ('old') and w/ patch set ('new') We are comparing energy w/ task and w/o task placed in the PDs a) 'old' w/o patch set, PD0 task_util = 13 cost = 480 sum_util_w/o_task = 215 sum_util_w_task = 228 scale_cpu = 1024 energy_w/o_task = 480 * 215 / 1024 = 100.78 => 100 energy_w_task = 480 * 228 / 1024 = 106.87 => 106 energy_diff = 106 - 100 = 6 (this is equal to 'old' PD1's energy_diff in 'c)') b) 'new' w/ patch set, PD0 task_util = 13 cost = 480 * 1000 = 480000 sum_util_w/o_task = 215 sum_util_w_task = 228 energy_w/o_task = 480000 * 215 / 1024 = 100781 energy_w_task = 480000 * 228 / 1024 = 106875 energy_diff = 106875 - 100781 = 6094 (this is not equal to 'new' PD1's energy_diff in 'd)') c) 'old' w/o patch set, PD1 task_util = 13 cost = 160 sum_util_w/o_task = 283 sum_util_w_task = 293 scale_cpu = 355 energy_w/o_task = 160 * 283 / 355 = 127.55 => 127 energy_w_task = 160 * 296 / 355 = 133.41 => 133 energy_diff = 133 - 127 = 6 (this is equal to 'old' PD0's energy_diff in 'a)') d) 'new' w/ patch set, PD1 task_util = 13 cost = 160 * 1000 = 160000 sum_util_w/o_task = 283 sum_util_w_task = 293 scale_cpu = 355 energy_w/o_task = 160000 * 283 / 355 = 127549 energy_w_task = 160000 * 296 / 355 = 133408 energy_diff = 133408 - 127549 = 5859 (this is not equal to 'new' PD0's energy_diff in 'b)') 2. Difference in the 6% energy margin filter at the end of find_energy_efficient_cpu(). With this patch the margin comparison also has better resolution, so it's possible to have better task placement thanks to that. Fixes: 27871f7a8a341ef ("PM: Introduce an Energy Model management framework") Reported-by: CCJ Yeh <CCj.Yeh@mediatek.com> Reviewed-by: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
2021-08-03 13:27:43 +03:00
#else
PM: EM: convert power field to micro-Watts precision and align drivers The milli-Watts precision causes rounding errors while calculating efficiency cost for each OPP. This is especially visible in the 'simple' Energy Model (EM), where the power for each OPP is provided from OPP framework. This can cause some OPPs to be marked inefficient, while using micro-Watts precision that might not happen. Update all EM users which access 'power' field and assume the value is in milli-Watts. Solve also an issue with potential overflow in calculation of energy estimation on 32bit machine. It's needed now since the power value (thus the 'cost' as well) are higher. Example calculation which shows the rounding error and impact: power = 'dyn-power-coeff' * volt_mV * volt_mV * freq_MHz power_a_uW = (100 * 600mW * 600mW * 500MHz) / 10^6 = 18000 power_a_mW = (100 * 600mW * 600mW * 500MHz) / 10^9 = 18 power_b_uW = (100 * 605mW * 605mW * 600MHz) / 10^6 = 21961 power_b_mW = (100 * 605mW * 605mW * 600MHz) / 10^9 = 21 max_freq = 2000MHz cost_a_mW = 18 * 2000MHz/500MHz = 72 cost_a_uW = 18000 * 2000MHz/500MHz = 72000 cost_b_mW = 21 * 2000MHz/600MHz = 70 // <- artificially better cost_b_uW = 21961 * 2000MHz/600MHz = 73203 The 'cost_b_mW' (which is based on old milli-Watts) is misleadingly better that the 'cost_b_uW' (this patch uses micro-Watts) and such would have impact on the 'inefficient OPPs' information in the Cpufreq framework. This patch set removes the rounding issue. Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com> Acked-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
2022-07-07 10:15:52 +03:00
#define em_estimate_energy(cost, sum_util, scale_cpu) \
(((cost) / (scale_cpu)) * (sum_util))
PM: EM: Increase energy calculation precision The Energy Model (EM) provides useful information about device power in each performance state to other subsystems like: Energy Aware Scheduler (EAS). The energy calculation in EAS does arithmetic operation based on the EM em_cpu_energy(). Current implementation of that function uses em_perf_state::cost as a pre-computed cost coefficient equal to: cost = power * max_frequency / frequency. The 'power' is expressed in milli-Watts (or in abstract scale). There are corner cases when the EAS energy calculation for two Performance Domains (PDs) return the same value. The EAS compares these values to choose smaller one. It might happen that this values are equal due to rounding error. In such scenario, we need better resolution, e.g. 1000 times better. To provide this possibility increase the resolution in the em_perf_state::cost for 64-bit architectures. The cost of increasing resolution on 32-bit is pretty high (64-bit division) and is not justified since there are no new 32bit big.LITTLE EAS systems expected which would benefit from this higher resolution. This patch allows to avoid the rounding to milli-Watt errors, which might occur in EAS energy estimation for each PD. The rounding error is common for small tasks which have small utilization value. There are two places in the code where it makes a difference: 1. In the find_energy_efficient_cpu() where we are searching for best_delta. We might suffer there when two PDs return the same result, like in the example below. Scenario: Low utilized system e.g. ~200 sum_util for PD0 and ~220 for PD1. There are quite a few small tasks ~10-15 util. These tasks would suffer for the rounding error. These utilization values are typical when running games on Android. One of our partners has reported 5..10mA less battery drain when running with increased resolution. Some details: We have two PDs: PD0 (big) and PD1 (little) Let's compare w/o patch set ('old') and w/ patch set ('new') We are comparing energy w/ task and w/o task placed in the PDs a) 'old' w/o patch set, PD0 task_util = 13 cost = 480 sum_util_w/o_task = 215 sum_util_w_task = 228 scale_cpu = 1024 energy_w/o_task = 480 * 215 / 1024 = 100.78 => 100 energy_w_task = 480 * 228 / 1024 = 106.87 => 106 energy_diff = 106 - 100 = 6 (this is equal to 'old' PD1's energy_diff in 'c)') b) 'new' w/ patch set, PD0 task_util = 13 cost = 480 * 1000 = 480000 sum_util_w/o_task = 215 sum_util_w_task = 228 energy_w/o_task = 480000 * 215 / 1024 = 100781 energy_w_task = 480000 * 228 / 1024 = 106875 energy_diff = 106875 - 100781 = 6094 (this is not equal to 'new' PD1's energy_diff in 'd)') c) 'old' w/o patch set, PD1 task_util = 13 cost = 160 sum_util_w/o_task = 283 sum_util_w_task = 293 scale_cpu = 355 energy_w/o_task = 160 * 283 / 355 = 127.55 => 127 energy_w_task = 160 * 296 / 355 = 133.41 => 133 energy_diff = 133 - 127 = 6 (this is equal to 'old' PD0's energy_diff in 'a)') d) 'new' w/ patch set, PD1 task_util = 13 cost = 160 * 1000 = 160000 sum_util_w/o_task = 283 sum_util_w_task = 293 scale_cpu = 355 energy_w/o_task = 160000 * 283 / 355 = 127549 energy_w_task = 160000 * 296 / 355 = 133408 energy_diff = 133408 - 127549 = 5859 (this is not equal to 'new' PD0's energy_diff in 'b)') 2. Difference in the 6% energy margin filter at the end of find_energy_efficient_cpu(). With this patch the margin comparison also has better resolution, so it's possible to have better task placement thanks to that. Fixes: 27871f7a8a341ef ("PM: Introduce an Energy Model management framework") Reported-by: CCJ Yeh <CCj.Yeh@mediatek.com> Reviewed-by: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
2021-08-03 13:27:43 +03:00
#endif
PM: Introduce an Energy Model management framework Several subsystems in the kernel (task scheduler and/or thermal at the time of writing) can benefit from knowing about the energy consumed by CPUs. Yet, this information can come from different sources (DT or firmware for example), in different formats, hence making it hard to exploit without a standard API. As an attempt to address this, introduce a centralized Energy Model (EM) management framework which aggregates the power values provided by drivers into a table for each performance domain in the system. The power cost tables are made available to interested clients (e.g. task scheduler or thermal) via platform-agnostic APIs. The overall design is represented by the diagram below (focused on Arm-related drivers as an example, but applicable to any architecture): +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | Thermal (IPA) | | Scheduler (EAS) | | Other | +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | | em_pd_energy() | | | em_cpu_get() | +-----------+ | +--------+ | | | v v v +---------------------+ | | | Energy Model | | | | Framework | | | +---------------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | em_register_perf_domain() +----------+ | +---------+ | | | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | cpufreq-dt | | arm_scmi | | Other | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | Device Tree | | Firmware | | ? | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ Drivers (typically, but not limited to, CPUFreq drivers) can register data in the EM framework using the em_register_perf_domain() API. The calling driver must provide a callback function with a standardized signature that will be used by the EM framework to build the power cost tables of the performance domain. This design should offer a lot of flexibility to calling drivers which are free of reading information from any location and to use any technique to compute power costs. Moreover, the capacity states registered by drivers in the EM framework are not required to match real performance states of the target. This is particularly important on targets where the performance states are not known by the OS. The power cost coefficients managed by the EM framework are specified in milli-watts. Although the two potential users of those coefficients (IPA and EAS) only need relative correctness, IPA specifically needs to compare the power of CPUs with the power of other components (GPUs, for example), which are still expressed in absolute terms in their respective subsystems. Hence, specifying the power of CPUs in milli-watts should help transitioning IPA to using the EM framework without introducing new problems by keeping units comparable across sub-systems. On the longer term, the EM of other devices than CPUs could also be managed by the EM framework, which would enable to remove the absolute unit. However, this is not absolutely required as a first step, so this extension of the EM framework is left for later. On the client side, the EM framework offers APIs to access the power cost tables of a CPU (em_cpu_get()), and to estimate the energy consumed by the CPUs of a performance domain (em_pd_energy()). Clients such as the task scheduler can then use these APIs to access the shared data structures holding the Energy Model of CPUs. Signed-off-by: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: adharmap@codeaurora.org Cc: chris.redpath@arm.com Cc: currojerez@riseup.net Cc: dietmar.eggemann@arm.com Cc: edubezval@gmail.com Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Cc: javi.merino@kernel.org Cc: joel@joelfernandes.org Cc: juri.lelli@redhat.com Cc: morten.rasmussen@arm.com Cc: patrick.bellasi@arm.com Cc: pkondeti@codeaurora.org Cc: skannan@codeaurora.org Cc: smuckle@google.com Cc: srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com Cc: thara.gopinath@linaro.org Cc: tkjos@google.com Cc: valentin.schneider@arm.com Cc: vincent.guittot@linaro.org Cc: viresh.kumar@linaro.org Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181203095628.11858-4-quentin.perret@arm.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2018-12-03 12:56:16 +03:00
struct em_data_callback {
/**
* active_power() - Provide power at the next performance state of
* a device
* @dev : Device for which we do this operation (can be a CPU)
* @power : Active power at the performance state
* (modified)
* @freq : Frequency at the performance state in kHz
* (modified)
PM: Introduce an Energy Model management framework Several subsystems in the kernel (task scheduler and/or thermal at the time of writing) can benefit from knowing about the energy consumed by CPUs. Yet, this information can come from different sources (DT or firmware for example), in different formats, hence making it hard to exploit without a standard API. As an attempt to address this, introduce a centralized Energy Model (EM) management framework which aggregates the power values provided by drivers into a table for each performance domain in the system. The power cost tables are made available to interested clients (e.g. task scheduler or thermal) via platform-agnostic APIs. The overall design is represented by the diagram below (focused on Arm-related drivers as an example, but applicable to any architecture): +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | Thermal (IPA) | | Scheduler (EAS) | | Other | +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | | em_pd_energy() | | | em_cpu_get() | +-----------+ | +--------+ | | | v v v +---------------------+ | | | Energy Model | | | | Framework | | | +---------------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | em_register_perf_domain() +----------+ | +---------+ | | | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | cpufreq-dt | | arm_scmi | | Other | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | Device Tree | | Firmware | | ? | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ Drivers (typically, but not limited to, CPUFreq drivers) can register data in the EM framework using the em_register_perf_domain() API. The calling driver must provide a callback function with a standardized signature that will be used by the EM framework to build the power cost tables of the performance domain. This design should offer a lot of flexibility to calling drivers which are free of reading information from any location and to use any technique to compute power costs. Moreover, the capacity states registered by drivers in the EM framework are not required to match real performance states of the target. This is particularly important on targets where the performance states are not known by the OS. The power cost coefficients managed by the EM framework are specified in milli-watts. Although the two potential users of those coefficients (IPA and EAS) only need relative correctness, IPA specifically needs to compare the power of CPUs with the power of other components (GPUs, for example), which are still expressed in absolute terms in their respective subsystems. Hence, specifying the power of CPUs in milli-watts should help transitioning IPA to using the EM framework without introducing new problems by keeping units comparable across sub-systems. On the longer term, the EM of other devices than CPUs could also be managed by the EM framework, which would enable to remove the absolute unit. However, this is not absolutely required as a first step, so this extension of the EM framework is left for later. On the client side, the EM framework offers APIs to access the power cost tables of a CPU (em_cpu_get()), and to estimate the energy consumed by the CPUs of a performance domain (em_pd_energy()). Clients such as the task scheduler can then use these APIs to access the shared data structures holding the Energy Model of CPUs. Signed-off-by: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: adharmap@codeaurora.org Cc: chris.redpath@arm.com Cc: currojerez@riseup.net Cc: dietmar.eggemann@arm.com Cc: edubezval@gmail.com Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Cc: javi.merino@kernel.org Cc: joel@joelfernandes.org Cc: juri.lelli@redhat.com Cc: morten.rasmussen@arm.com Cc: patrick.bellasi@arm.com Cc: pkondeti@codeaurora.org Cc: skannan@codeaurora.org Cc: smuckle@google.com Cc: srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com Cc: thara.gopinath@linaro.org Cc: tkjos@google.com Cc: valentin.schneider@arm.com Cc: vincent.guittot@linaro.org Cc: viresh.kumar@linaro.org Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181203095628.11858-4-quentin.perret@arm.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2018-12-03 12:56:16 +03:00
*
* active_power() must find the lowest performance state of 'dev' above
PM: Introduce an Energy Model management framework Several subsystems in the kernel (task scheduler and/or thermal at the time of writing) can benefit from knowing about the energy consumed by CPUs. Yet, this information can come from different sources (DT or firmware for example), in different formats, hence making it hard to exploit without a standard API. As an attempt to address this, introduce a centralized Energy Model (EM) management framework which aggregates the power values provided by drivers into a table for each performance domain in the system. The power cost tables are made available to interested clients (e.g. task scheduler or thermal) via platform-agnostic APIs. The overall design is represented by the diagram below (focused on Arm-related drivers as an example, but applicable to any architecture): +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | Thermal (IPA) | | Scheduler (EAS) | | Other | +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | | em_pd_energy() | | | em_cpu_get() | +-----------+ | +--------+ | | | v v v +---------------------+ | | | Energy Model | | | | Framework | | | +---------------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | em_register_perf_domain() +----------+ | +---------+ | | | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | cpufreq-dt | | arm_scmi | | Other | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | Device Tree | | Firmware | | ? | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ Drivers (typically, but not limited to, CPUFreq drivers) can register data in the EM framework using the em_register_perf_domain() API. The calling driver must provide a callback function with a standardized signature that will be used by the EM framework to build the power cost tables of the performance domain. This design should offer a lot of flexibility to calling drivers which are free of reading information from any location and to use any technique to compute power costs. Moreover, the capacity states registered by drivers in the EM framework are not required to match real performance states of the target. This is particularly important on targets where the performance states are not known by the OS. The power cost coefficients managed by the EM framework are specified in milli-watts. Although the two potential users of those coefficients (IPA and EAS) only need relative correctness, IPA specifically needs to compare the power of CPUs with the power of other components (GPUs, for example), which are still expressed in absolute terms in their respective subsystems. Hence, specifying the power of CPUs in milli-watts should help transitioning IPA to using the EM framework without introducing new problems by keeping units comparable across sub-systems. On the longer term, the EM of other devices than CPUs could also be managed by the EM framework, which would enable to remove the absolute unit. However, this is not absolutely required as a first step, so this extension of the EM framework is left for later. On the client side, the EM framework offers APIs to access the power cost tables of a CPU (em_cpu_get()), and to estimate the energy consumed by the CPUs of a performance domain (em_pd_energy()). Clients such as the task scheduler can then use these APIs to access the shared data structures holding the Energy Model of CPUs. Signed-off-by: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: adharmap@codeaurora.org Cc: chris.redpath@arm.com Cc: currojerez@riseup.net Cc: dietmar.eggemann@arm.com Cc: edubezval@gmail.com Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Cc: javi.merino@kernel.org Cc: joel@joelfernandes.org Cc: juri.lelli@redhat.com Cc: morten.rasmussen@arm.com Cc: patrick.bellasi@arm.com Cc: pkondeti@codeaurora.org Cc: skannan@codeaurora.org Cc: smuckle@google.com Cc: srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com Cc: thara.gopinath@linaro.org Cc: tkjos@google.com Cc: valentin.schneider@arm.com Cc: vincent.guittot@linaro.org Cc: viresh.kumar@linaro.org Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181203095628.11858-4-quentin.perret@arm.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2018-12-03 12:56:16 +03:00
* 'freq' and update 'power' and 'freq' to the matching active power
* and frequency.
*
* In case of CPUs, the power is the one of a single CPU in the domain,
PM: EM: convert power field to micro-Watts precision and align drivers The milli-Watts precision causes rounding errors while calculating efficiency cost for each OPP. This is especially visible in the 'simple' Energy Model (EM), where the power for each OPP is provided from OPP framework. This can cause some OPPs to be marked inefficient, while using micro-Watts precision that might not happen. Update all EM users which access 'power' field and assume the value is in milli-Watts. Solve also an issue with potential overflow in calculation of energy estimation on 32bit machine. It's needed now since the power value (thus the 'cost' as well) are higher. Example calculation which shows the rounding error and impact: power = 'dyn-power-coeff' * volt_mV * volt_mV * freq_MHz power_a_uW = (100 * 600mW * 600mW * 500MHz) / 10^6 = 18000 power_a_mW = (100 * 600mW * 600mW * 500MHz) / 10^9 = 18 power_b_uW = (100 * 605mW * 605mW * 600MHz) / 10^6 = 21961 power_b_mW = (100 * 605mW * 605mW * 600MHz) / 10^9 = 21 max_freq = 2000MHz cost_a_mW = 18 * 2000MHz/500MHz = 72 cost_a_uW = 18000 * 2000MHz/500MHz = 72000 cost_b_mW = 21 * 2000MHz/600MHz = 70 // <- artificially better cost_b_uW = 21961 * 2000MHz/600MHz = 73203 The 'cost_b_mW' (which is based on old milli-Watts) is misleadingly better that the 'cost_b_uW' (this patch uses micro-Watts) and such would have impact on the 'inefficient OPPs' information in the Cpufreq framework. This patch set removes the rounding issue. Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com> Acked-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
2022-07-07 10:15:52 +03:00
* expressed in micro-Watts or an abstract scale. It is expected to
* fit in the [0, EM_MAX_POWER] range.
PM: Introduce an Energy Model management framework Several subsystems in the kernel (task scheduler and/or thermal at the time of writing) can benefit from knowing about the energy consumed by CPUs. Yet, this information can come from different sources (DT or firmware for example), in different formats, hence making it hard to exploit without a standard API. As an attempt to address this, introduce a centralized Energy Model (EM) management framework which aggregates the power values provided by drivers into a table for each performance domain in the system. The power cost tables are made available to interested clients (e.g. task scheduler or thermal) via platform-agnostic APIs. The overall design is represented by the diagram below (focused on Arm-related drivers as an example, but applicable to any architecture): +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | Thermal (IPA) | | Scheduler (EAS) | | Other | +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | | em_pd_energy() | | | em_cpu_get() | +-----------+ | +--------+ | | | v v v +---------------------+ | | | Energy Model | | | | Framework | | | +---------------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | em_register_perf_domain() +----------+ | +---------+ | | | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | cpufreq-dt | | arm_scmi | | Other | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | Device Tree | | Firmware | | ? | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ Drivers (typically, but not limited to, CPUFreq drivers) can register data in the EM framework using the em_register_perf_domain() API. The calling driver must provide a callback function with a standardized signature that will be used by the EM framework to build the power cost tables of the performance domain. This design should offer a lot of flexibility to calling drivers which are free of reading information from any location and to use any technique to compute power costs. Moreover, the capacity states registered by drivers in the EM framework are not required to match real performance states of the target. This is particularly important on targets where the performance states are not known by the OS. The power cost coefficients managed by the EM framework are specified in milli-watts. Although the two potential users of those coefficients (IPA and EAS) only need relative correctness, IPA specifically needs to compare the power of CPUs with the power of other components (GPUs, for example), which are still expressed in absolute terms in their respective subsystems. Hence, specifying the power of CPUs in milli-watts should help transitioning IPA to using the EM framework without introducing new problems by keeping units comparable across sub-systems. On the longer term, the EM of other devices than CPUs could also be managed by the EM framework, which would enable to remove the absolute unit. However, this is not absolutely required as a first step, so this extension of the EM framework is left for later. On the client side, the EM framework offers APIs to access the power cost tables of a CPU (em_cpu_get()), and to estimate the energy consumed by the CPUs of a performance domain (em_pd_energy()). Clients such as the task scheduler can then use these APIs to access the shared data structures holding the Energy Model of CPUs. Signed-off-by: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: adharmap@codeaurora.org Cc: chris.redpath@arm.com Cc: currojerez@riseup.net Cc: dietmar.eggemann@arm.com Cc: edubezval@gmail.com Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Cc: javi.merino@kernel.org Cc: joel@joelfernandes.org Cc: juri.lelli@redhat.com Cc: morten.rasmussen@arm.com Cc: patrick.bellasi@arm.com Cc: pkondeti@codeaurora.org Cc: skannan@codeaurora.org Cc: smuckle@google.com Cc: srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com Cc: thara.gopinath@linaro.org Cc: tkjos@google.com Cc: valentin.schneider@arm.com Cc: vincent.guittot@linaro.org Cc: viresh.kumar@linaro.org Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181203095628.11858-4-quentin.perret@arm.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2018-12-03 12:56:16 +03:00
*
* Return 0 on success.
*/
int (*active_power)(struct device *dev, unsigned long *power,
unsigned long *freq);
PM: EM: Add .get_cost() callback The Energy Model (EM) supports devices which report abstract power scale, not only real Watts. The primary goal for EM is to enable the Energy Aware Scheduler (EAS) for a given platform. Some of the platforms might not be able to deliver proper power values. The only information that they might have is the relative efficiency between CPU types. Thus, it makes sense to remove some restrictions in the EM framework and introduce a mechanism which would support those platforms. What is crucial for EAS to operate is the 'cost' field in the EM. The 'cost' is calculated internally in EM framework based on knowledge from 'power' values. The 'cost' values must be strictly increasing. The existing API with its 'power' value size restrictions cannot guarantee that the 'cost' will meet this requirement. Since the platform is missing this detailed information, but has only efficiency details, introduce a new custom callback in the EM framework. The new callback would allow to provide the 'cost' values which reflect efficiency of the CPUs. This would allow to provide EAS information which has different relation than what would be forced by the EM internal formulas calculating 'cost' values. Thanks to this new callback it is possible to create a system view for EAS which has no overlapping performance states across many Performance Domains. Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com> Reviewed-by: Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
2022-03-21 12:57:22 +03:00
/**
* get_cost() - Provide the cost at the given performance state of
* a device
* @dev : Device for which we do this operation (can be a CPU)
* @freq : Frequency at the performance state in kHz
* @cost : The cost value for the performance state
* (modified)
*
* In case of CPUs, the cost is the one of a single CPU in the domain.
* It is expected to fit in the [0, EM_MAX_POWER] range due to internal
* usage in EAS calculation.
*
* Return 0 on success, or appropriate error value in case of failure.
*/
int (*get_cost)(struct device *dev, unsigned long freq,
unsigned long *cost);
PM: Introduce an Energy Model management framework Several subsystems in the kernel (task scheduler and/or thermal at the time of writing) can benefit from knowing about the energy consumed by CPUs. Yet, this information can come from different sources (DT or firmware for example), in different formats, hence making it hard to exploit without a standard API. As an attempt to address this, introduce a centralized Energy Model (EM) management framework which aggregates the power values provided by drivers into a table for each performance domain in the system. The power cost tables are made available to interested clients (e.g. task scheduler or thermal) via platform-agnostic APIs. The overall design is represented by the diagram below (focused on Arm-related drivers as an example, but applicable to any architecture): +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | Thermal (IPA) | | Scheduler (EAS) | | Other | +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | | em_pd_energy() | | | em_cpu_get() | +-----------+ | +--------+ | | | v v v +---------------------+ | | | Energy Model | | | | Framework | | | +---------------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | em_register_perf_domain() +----------+ | +---------+ | | | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | cpufreq-dt | | arm_scmi | | Other | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | Device Tree | | Firmware | | ? | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ Drivers (typically, but not limited to, CPUFreq drivers) can register data in the EM framework using the em_register_perf_domain() API. The calling driver must provide a callback function with a standardized signature that will be used by the EM framework to build the power cost tables of the performance domain. This design should offer a lot of flexibility to calling drivers which are free of reading information from any location and to use any technique to compute power costs. Moreover, the capacity states registered by drivers in the EM framework are not required to match real performance states of the target. This is particularly important on targets where the performance states are not known by the OS. The power cost coefficients managed by the EM framework are specified in milli-watts. Although the two potential users of those coefficients (IPA and EAS) only need relative correctness, IPA specifically needs to compare the power of CPUs with the power of other components (GPUs, for example), which are still expressed in absolute terms in their respective subsystems. Hence, specifying the power of CPUs in milli-watts should help transitioning IPA to using the EM framework without introducing new problems by keeping units comparable across sub-systems. On the longer term, the EM of other devices than CPUs could also be managed by the EM framework, which would enable to remove the absolute unit. However, this is not absolutely required as a first step, so this extension of the EM framework is left for later. On the client side, the EM framework offers APIs to access the power cost tables of a CPU (em_cpu_get()), and to estimate the energy consumed by the CPUs of a performance domain (em_pd_energy()). Clients such as the task scheduler can then use these APIs to access the shared data structures holding the Energy Model of CPUs. Signed-off-by: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: adharmap@codeaurora.org Cc: chris.redpath@arm.com Cc: currojerez@riseup.net Cc: dietmar.eggemann@arm.com Cc: edubezval@gmail.com Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Cc: javi.merino@kernel.org Cc: joel@joelfernandes.org Cc: juri.lelli@redhat.com Cc: morten.rasmussen@arm.com Cc: patrick.bellasi@arm.com Cc: pkondeti@codeaurora.org Cc: skannan@codeaurora.org Cc: smuckle@google.com Cc: srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com Cc: thara.gopinath@linaro.org Cc: tkjos@google.com Cc: valentin.schneider@arm.com Cc: vincent.guittot@linaro.org Cc: viresh.kumar@linaro.org Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181203095628.11858-4-quentin.perret@arm.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2018-12-03 12:56:16 +03:00
};
#define EM_SET_ACTIVE_POWER_CB(em_cb, cb) ((em_cb).active_power = cb)
PM: EM: Add .get_cost() callback The Energy Model (EM) supports devices which report abstract power scale, not only real Watts. The primary goal for EM is to enable the Energy Aware Scheduler (EAS) for a given platform. Some of the platforms might not be able to deliver proper power values. The only information that they might have is the relative efficiency between CPU types. Thus, it makes sense to remove some restrictions in the EM framework and introduce a mechanism which would support those platforms. What is crucial for EAS to operate is the 'cost' field in the EM. The 'cost' is calculated internally in EM framework based on knowledge from 'power' values. The 'cost' values must be strictly increasing. The existing API with its 'power' value size restrictions cannot guarantee that the 'cost' will meet this requirement. Since the platform is missing this detailed information, but has only efficiency details, introduce a new custom callback in the EM framework. The new callback would allow to provide the 'cost' values which reflect efficiency of the CPUs. This would allow to provide EAS information which has different relation than what would be forced by the EM internal formulas calculating 'cost' values. Thanks to this new callback it is possible to create a system view for EAS which has no overlapping performance states across many Performance Domains. Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com> Reviewed-by: Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
2022-03-21 12:57:22 +03:00
#define EM_ADV_DATA_CB(_active_power_cb, _cost_cb) \
{ .active_power = _active_power_cb, \
.get_cost = _cost_cb }
#define EM_DATA_CB(_active_power_cb) \
EM_ADV_DATA_CB(_active_power_cb, NULL)
PM: Introduce an Energy Model management framework Several subsystems in the kernel (task scheduler and/or thermal at the time of writing) can benefit from knowing about the energy consumed by CPUs. Yet, this information can come from different sources (DT or firmware for example), in different formats, hence making it hard to exploit without a standard API. As an attempt to address this, introduce a centralized Energy Model (EM) management framework which aggregates the power values provided by drivers into a table for each performance domain in the system. The power cost tables are made available to interested clients (e.g. task scheduler or thermal) via platform-agnostic APIs. The overall design is represented by the diagram below (focused on Arm-related drivers as an example, but applicable to any architecture): +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | Thermal (IPA) | | Scheduler (EAS) | | Other | +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | | em_pd_energy() | | | em_cpu_get() | +-----------+ | +--------+ | | | v v v +---------------------+ | | | Energy Model | | | | Framework | | | +---------------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | em_register_perf_domain() +----------+ | +---------+ | | | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | cpufreq-dt | | arm_scmi | | Other | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | Device Tree | | Firmware | | ? | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ Drivers (typically, but not limited to, CPUFreq drivers) can register data in the EM framework using the em_register_perf_domain() API. The calling driver must provide a callback function with a standardized signature that will be used by the EM framework to build the power cost tables of the performance domain. This design should offer a lot of flexibility to calling drivers which are free of reading information from any location and to use any technique to compute power costs. Moreover, the capacity states registered by drivers in the EM framework are not required to match real performance states of the target. This is particularly important on targets where the performance states are not known by the OS. The power cost coefficients managed by the EM framework are specified in milli-watts. Although the two potential users of those coefficients (IPA and EAS) only need relative correctness, IPA specifically needs to compare the power of CPUs with the power of other components (GPUs, for example), which are still expressed in absolute terms in their respective subsystems. Hence, specifying the power of CPUs in milli-watts should help transitioning IPA to using the EM framework without introducing new problems by keeping units comparable across sub-systems. On the longer term, the EM of other devices than CPUs could also be managed by the EM framework, which would enable to remove the absolute unit. However, this is not absolutely required as a first step, so this extension of the EM framework is left for later. On the client side, the EM framework offers APIs to access the power cost tables of a CPU (em_cpu_get()), and to estimate the energy consumed by the CPUs of a performance domain (em_pd_energy()). Clients such as the task scheduler can then use these APIs to access the shared data structures holding the Energy Model of CPUs. Signed-off-by: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: adharmap@codeaurora.org Cc: chris.redpath@arm.com Cc: currojerez@riseup.net Cc: dietmar.eggemann@arm.com Cc: edubezval@gmail.com Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Cc: javi.merino@kernel.org Cc: joel@joelfernandes.org Cc: juri.lelli@redhat.com Cc: morten.rasmussen@arm.com Cc: patrick.bellasi@arm.com Cc: pkondeti@codeaurora.org Cc: skannan@codeaurora.org Cc: smuckle@google.com Cc: srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com Cc: thara.gopinath@linaro.org Cc: tkjos@google.com Cc: valentin.schneider@arm.com Cc: vincent.guittot@linaro.org Cc: viresh.kumar@linaro.org Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181203095628.11858-4-quentin.perret@arm.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2018-12-03 12:56:16 +03:00
struct em_perf_domain *em_cpu_get(int cpu);
struct em_perf_domain *em_pd_get(struct device *dev);
int em_dev_register_perf_domain(struct device *dev, unsigned int nr_states,
struct em_data_callback *cb, cpumask_t *span,
PM: EM: convert power field to micro-Watts precision and align drivers The milli-Watts precision causes rounding errors while calculating efficiency cost for each OPP. This is especially visible in the 'simple' Energy Model (EM), where the power for each OPP is provided from OPP framework. This can cause some OPPs to be marked inefficient, while using micro-Watts precision that might not happen. Update all EM users which access 'power' field and assume the value is in milli-Watts. Solve also an issue with potential overflow in calculation of energy estimation on 32bit machine. It's needed now since the power value (thus the 'cost' as well) are higher. Example calculation which shows the rounding error and impact: power = 'dyn-power-coeff' * volt_mV * volt_mV * freq_MHz power_a_uW = (100 * 600mW * 600mW * 500MHz) / 10^6 = 18000 power_a_mW = (100 * 600mW * 600mW * 500MHz) / 10^9 = 18 power_b_uW = (100 * 605mW * 605mW * 600MHz) / 10^6 = 21961 power_b_mW = (100 * 605mW * 605mW * 600MHz) / 10^9 = 21 max_freq = 2000MHz cost_a_mW = 18 * 2000MHz/500MHz = 72 cost_a_uW = 18000 * 2000MHz/500MHz = 72000 cost_b_mW = 21 * 2000MHz/600MHz = 70 // <- artificially better cost_b_uW = 21961 * 2000MHz/600MHz = 73203 The 'cost_b_mW' (which is based on old milli-Watts) is misleadingly better that the 'cost_b_uW' (this patch uses micro-Watts) and such would have impact on the 'inefficient OPPs' information in the Cpufreq framework. This patch set removes the rounding issue. Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com> Acked-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
2022-07-07 10:15:52 +03:00
bool microwatts);
void em_dev_unregister_perf_domain(struct device *dev);
PM: Introduce an Energy Model management framework Several subsystems in the kernel (task scheduler and/or thermal at the time of writing) can benefit from knowing about the energy consumed by CPUs. Yet, this information can come from different sources (DT or firmware for example), in different formats, hence making it hard to exploit without a standard API. As an attempt to address this, introduce a centralized Energy Model (EM) management framework which aggregates the power values provided by drivers into a table for each performance domain in the system. The power cost tables are made available to interested clients (e.g. task scheduler or thermal) via platform-agnostic APIs. The overall design is represented by the diagram below (focused on Arm-related drivers as an example, but applicable to any architecture): +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | Thermal (IPA) | | Scheduler (EAS) | | Other | +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | | em_pd_energy() | | | em_cpu_get() | +-----------+ | +--------+ | | | v v v +---------------------+ | | | Energy Model | | | | Framework | | | +---------------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | em_register_perf_domain() +----------+ | +---------+ | | | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | cpufreq-dt | | arm_scmi | | Other | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | Device Tree | | Firmware | | ? | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ Drivers (typically, but not limited to, CPUFreq drivers) can register data in the EM framework using the em_register_perf_domain() API. The calling driver must provide a callback function with a standardized signature that will be used by the EM framework to build the power cost tables of the performance domain. This design should offer a lot of flexibility to calling drivers which are free of reading information from any location and to use any technique to compute power costs. Moreover, the capacity states registered by drivers in the EM framework are not required to match real performance states of the target. This is particularly important on targets where the performance states are not known by the OS. The power cost coefficients managed by the EM framework are specified in milli-watts. Although the two potential users of those coefficients (IPA and EAS) only need relative correctness, IPA specifically needs to compare the power of CPUs with the power of other components (GPUs, for example), which are still expressed in absolute terms in their respective subsystems. Hence, specifying the power of CPUs in milli-watts should help transitioning IPA to using the EM framework without introducing new problems by keeping units comparable across sub-systems. On the longer term, the EM of other devices than CPUs could also be managed by the EM framework, which would enable to remove the absolute unit. However, this is not absolutely required as a first step, so this extension of the EM framework is left for later. On the client side, the EM framework offers APIs to access the power cost tables of a CPU (em_cpu_get()), and to estimate the energy consumed by the CPUs of a performance domain (em_pd_energy()). Clients such as the task scheduler can then use these APIs to access the shared data structures holding the Energy Model of CPUs. Signed-off-by: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: adharmap@codeaurora.org Cc: chris.redpath@arm.com Cc: currojerez@riseup.net Cc: dietmar.eggemann@arm.com Cc: edubezval@gmail.com Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Cc: javi.merino@kernel.org Cc: joel@joelfernandes.org Cc: juri.lelli@redhat.com Cc: morten.rasmussen@arm.com Cc: patrick.bellasi@arm.com Cc: pkondeti@codeaurora.org Cc: skannan@codeaurora.org Cc: smuckle@google.com Cc: srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com Cc: thara.gopinath@linaro.org Cc: tkjos@google.com Cc: valentin.schneider@arm.com Cc: vincent.guittot@linaro.org Cc: viresh.kumar@linaro.org Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181203095628.11858-4-quentin.perret@arm.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2018-12-03 12:56:16 +03:00
/**
* em_pd_get_efficient_state() - Get an efficient performance state from the EM
* @pd : Performance domain for which we want an efficient frequency
* @freq : Frequency to map with the EM
*
* It is called from the scheduler code quite frequently and as a consequence
* doesn't implement any check.
*
* Return: An efficient performance state, high enough to meet @freq
* requirement.
*/
static inline
struct em_perf_state *em_pd_get_efficient_state(struct em_perf_domain *pd,
unsigned long freq)
{
struct em_perf_state *ps;
int i;
for (i = 0; i < pd->nr_perf_states; i++) {
ps = &pd->table[i];
if (ps->frequency >= freq) {
if (pd->flags & EM_PERF_DOMAIN_SKIP_INEFFICIENCIES &&
ps->flags & EM_PERF_STATE_INEFFICIENT)
continue;
break;
}
}
return ps;
}
PM: Introduce an Energy Model management framework Several subsystems in the kernel (task scheduler and/or thermal at the time of writing) can benefit from knowing about the energy consumed by CPUs. Yet, this information can come from different sources (DT or firmware for example), in different formats, hence making it hard to exploit without a standard API. As an attempt to address this, introduce a centralized Energy Model (EM) management framework which aggregates the power values provided by drivers into a table for each performance domain in the system. The power cost tables are made available to interested clients (e.g. task scheduler or thermal) via platform-agnostic APIs. The overall design is represented by the diagram below (focused on Arm-related drivers as an example, but applicable to any architecture): +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | Thermal (IPA) | | Scheduler (EAS) | | Other | +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | | em_pd_energy() | | | em_cpu_get() | +-----------+ | +--------+ | | | v v v +---------------------+ | | | Energy Model | | | | Framework | | | +---------------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | em_register_perf_domain() +----------+ | +---------+ | | | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | cpufreq-dt | | arm_scmi | | Other | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | Device Tree | | Firmware | | ? | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ Drivers (typically, but not limited to, CPUFreq drivers) can register data in the EM framework using the em_register_perf_domain() API. The calling driver must provide a callback function with a standardized signature that will be used by the EM framework to build the power cost tables of the performance domain. This design should offer a lot of flexibility to calling drivers which are free of reading information from any location and to use any technique to compute power costs. Moreover, the capacity states registered by drivers in the EM framework are not required to match real performance states of the target. This is particularly important on targets where the performance states are not known by the OS. The power cost coefficients managed by the EM framework are specified in milli-watts. Although the two potential users of those coefficients (IPA and EAS) only need relative correctness, IPA specifically needs to compare the power of CPUs with the power of other components (GPUs, for example), which are still expressed in absolute terms in their respective subsystems. Hence, specifying the power of CPUs in milli-watts should help transitioning IPA to using the EM framework without introducing new problems by keeping units comparable across sub-systems. On the longer term, the EM of other devices than CPUs could also be managed by the EM framework, which would enable to remove the absolute unit. However, this is not absolutely required as a first step, so this extension of the EM framework is left for later. On the client side, the EM framework offers APIs to access the power cost tables of a CPU (em_cpu_get()), and to estimate the energy consumed by the CPUs of a performance domain (em_pd_energy()). Clients such as the task scheduler can then use these APIs to access the shared data structures holding the Energy Model of CPUs. Signed-off-by: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: adharmap@codeaurora.org Cc: chris.redpath@arm.com Cc: currojerez@riseup.net Cc: dietmar.eggemann@arm.com Cc: edubezval@gmail.com Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Cc: javi.merino@kernel.org Cc: joel@joelfernandes.org Cc: juri.lelli@redhat.com Cc: morten.rasmussen@arm.com Cc: patrick.bellasi@arm.com Cc: pkondeti@codeaurora.org Cc: skannan@codeaurora.org Cc: smuckle@google.com Cc: srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com Cc: thara.gopinath@linaro.org Cc: tkjos@google.com Cc: valentin.schneider@arm.com Cc: vincent.guittot@linaro.org Cc: viresh.kumar@linaro.org Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181203095628.11858-4-quentin.perret@arm.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2018-12-03 12:56:16 +03:00
/**
* em_cpu_energy() - Estimates the energy consumed by the CPUs of a
* performance domain
PM: Introduce an Energy Model management framework Several subsystems in the kernel (task scheduler and/or thermal at the time of writing) can benefit from knowing about the energy consumed by CPUs. Yet, this information can come from different sources (DT or firmware for example), in different formats, hence making it hard to exploit without a standard API. As an attempt to address this, introduce a centralized Energy Model (EM) management framework which aggregates the power values provided by drivers into a table for each performance domain in the system. The power cost tables are made available to interested clients (e.g. task scheduler or thermal) via platform-agnostic APIs. The overall design is represented by the diagram below (focused on Arm-related drivers as an example, but applicable to any architecture): +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | Thermal (IPA) | | Scheduler (EAS) | | Other | +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | | em_pd_energy() | | | em_cpu_get() | +-----------+ | +--------+ | | | v v v +---------------------+ | | | Energy Model | | | | Framework | | | +---------------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | em_register_perf_domain() +----------+ | +---------+ | | | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | cpufreq-dt | | arm_scmi | | Other | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | Device Tree | | Firmware | | ? | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ Drivers (typically, but not limited to, CPUFreq drivers) can register data in the EM framework using the em_register_perf_domain() API. The calling driver must provide a callback function with a standardized signature that will be used by the EM framework to build the power cost tables of the performance domain. This design should offer a lot of flexibility to calling drivers which are free of reading information from any location and to use any technique to compute power costs. Moreover, the capacity states registered by drivers in the EM framework are not required to match real performance states of the target. This is particularly important on targets where the performance states are not known by the OS. The power cost coefficients managed by the EM framework are specified in milli-watts. Although the two potential users of those coefficients (IPA and EAS) only need relative correctness, IPA specifically needs to compare the power of CPUs with the power of other components (GPUs, for example), which are still expressed in absolute terms in their respective subsystems. Hence, specifying the power of CPUs in milli-watts should help transitioning IPA to using the EM framework without introducing new problems by keeping units comparable across sub-systems. On the longer term, the EM of other devices than CPUs could also be managed by the EM framework, which would enable to remove the absolute unit. However, this is not absolutely required as a first step, so this extension of the EM framework is left for later. On the client side, the EM framework offers APIs to access the power cost tables of a CPU (em_cpu_get()), and to estimate the energy consumed by the CPUs of a performance domain (em_pd_energy()). Clients such as the task scheduler can then use these APIs to access the shared data structures holding the Energy Model of CPUs. Signed-off-by: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: adharmap@codeaurora.org Cc: chris.redpath@arm.com Cc: currojerez@riseup.net Cc: dietmar.eggemann@arm.com Cc: edubezval@gmail.com Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Cc: javi.merino@kernel.org Cc: joel@joelfernandes.org Cc: juri.lelli@redhat.com Cc: morten.rasmussen@arm.com Cc: patrick.bellasi@arm.com Cc: pkondeti@codeaurora.org Cc: skannan@codeaurora.org Cc: smuckle@google.com Cc: srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com Cc: thara.gopinath@linaro.org Cc: tkjos@google.com Cc: valentin.schneider@arm.com Cc: vincent.guittot@linaro.org Cc: viresh.kumar@linaro.org Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181203095628.11858-4-quentin.perret@arm.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2018-12-03 12:56:16 +03:00
* @pd : performance domain for which energy has to be estimated
* @max_util : highest utilization among CPUs of the domain
* @sum_util : sum of the utilization of all CPUs in the domain
sched/cpufreq: Consider reduced CPU capacity in energy calculation Energy Aware Scheduling (EAS) needs to predict the decisions made by SchedUtil. The map_util_freq() exists to do that. There are corner cases where the max allowed frequency might be reduced (due to thermal). SchedUtil as a CPUFreq governor, is aware of that but EAS is not. This patch aims to address it. SchedUtil stores the maximum allowed frequency in 'sugov_policy::next_freq' field. EAS has to predict that value, which is the real used frequency. That value is made after a call to cpufreq_driver_resolve_freq() which clamps to the CPUFreq policy limits. In the existing code EAS is not able to predict that real frequency. This leads to energy estimation errors. To avoid wrong energy estimation in EAS (due to frequency miss prediction) make sure that the step which calculates Performance Domain frequency, is also aware of the allowed CPU capacity. Furthermore, modify map_util_freq() to not extend the frequency value. Instead, use map_util_perf() to extend the util value in both places: SchedUtil and EAS, but for EAS clamp it to max allowed CPU capacity. In the end, we achieve the same desirable behavior for both subsystems and alignment in regards to the real CPU frequency. Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Acked-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> (For the schedutil part) Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210614191238.23224-1-lukasz.luba@arm.com
2021-06-14 22:12:38 +03:00
* @allowed_cpu_cap : maximum allowed CPU capacity for the @pd, which
* might reflect reduced frequency (due to thermal)
PM: Introduce an Energy Model management framework Several subsystems in the kernel (task scheduler and/or thermal at the time of writing) can benefit from knowing about the energy consumed by CPUs. Yet, this information can come from different sources (DT or firmware for example), in different formats, hence making it hard to exploit without a standard API. As an attempt to address this, introduce a centralized Energy Model (EM) management framework which aggregates the power values provided by drivers into a table for each performance domain in the system. The power cost tables are made available to interested clients (e.g. task scheduler or thermal) via platform-agnostic APIs. The overall design is represented by the diagram below (focused on Arm-related drivers as an example, but applicable to any architecture): +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | Thermal (IPA) | | Scheduler (EAS) | | Other | +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | | em_pd_energy() | | | em_cpu_get() | +-----------+ | +--------+ | | | v v v +---------------------+ | | | Energy Model | | | | Framework | | | +---------------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | em_register_perf_domain() +----------+ | +---------+ | | | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | cpufreq-dt | | arm_scmi | | Other | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | Device Tree | | Firmware | | ? | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ Drivers (typically, but not limited to, CPUFreq drivers) can register data in the EM framework using the em_register_perf_domain() API. The calling driver must provide a callback function with a standardized signature that will be used by the EM framework to build the power cost tables of the performance domain. This design should offer a lot of flexibility to calling drivers which are free of reading information from any location and to use any technique to compute power costs. Moreover, the capacity states registered by drivers in the EM framework are not required to match real performance states of the target. This is particularly important on targets where the performance states are not known by the OS. The power cost coefficients managed by the EM framework are specified in milli-watts. Although the two potential users of those coefficients (IPA and EAS) only need relative correctness, IPA specifically needs to compare the power of CPUs with the power of other components (GPUs, for example), which are still expressed in absolute terms in their respective subsystems. Hence, specifying the power of CPUs in milli-watts should help transitioning IPA to using the EM framework without introducing new problems by keeping units comparable across sub-systems. On the longer term, the EM of other devices than CPUs could also be managed by the EM framework, which would enable to remove the absolute unit. However, this is not absolutely required as a first step, so this extension of the EM framework is left for later. On the client side, the EM framework offers APIs to access the power cost tables of a CPU (em_cpu_get()), and to estimate the energy consumed by the CPUs of a performance domain (em_pd_energy()). Clients such as the task scheduler can then use these APIs to access the shared data structures holding the Energy Model of CPUs. Signed-off-by: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: adharmap@codeaurora.org Cc: chris.redpath@arm.com Cc: currojerez@riseup.net Cc: dietmar.eggemann@arm.com Cc: edubezval@gmail.com Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Cc: javi.merino@kernel.org Cc: joel@joelfernandes.org Cc: juri.lelli@redhat.com Cc: morten.rasmussen@arm.com Cc: patrick.bellasi@arm.com Cc: pkondeti@codeaurora.org Cc: skannan@codeaurora.org Cc: smuckle@google.com Cc: srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com Cc: thara.gopinath@linaro.org Cc: tkjos@google.com Cc: valentin.schneider@arm.com Cc: vincent.guittot@linaro.org Cc: viresh.kumar@linaro.org Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181203095628.11858-4-quentin.perret@arm.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2018-12-03 12:56:16 +03:00
*
* This function must be used only for CPU devices. There is no validation,
* i.e. if the EM is a CPU type and has cpumask allocated. It is called from
* the scheduler code quite frequently and that is why there is not checks.
*
PM: Introduce an Energy Model management framework Several subsystems in the kernel (task scheduler and/or thermal at the time of writing) can benefit from knowing about the energy consumed by CPUs. Yet, this information can come from different sources (DT or firmware for example), in different formats, hence making it hard to exploit without a standard API. As an attempt to address this, introduce a centralized Energy Model (EM) management framework which aggregates the power values provided by drivers into a table for each performance domain in the system. The power cost tables are made available to interested clients (e.g. task scheduler or thermal) via platform-agnostic APIs. The overall design is represented by the diagram below (focused on Arm-related drivers as an example, but applicable to any architecture): +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | Thermal (IPA) | | Scheduler (EAS) | | Other | +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | | em_pd_energy() | | | em_cpu_get() | +-----------+ | +--------+ | | | v v v +---------------------+ | | | Energy Model | | | | Framework | | | +---------------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | em_register_perf_domain() +----------+ | +---------+ | | | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | cpufreq-dt | | arm_scmi | | Other | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | Device Tree | | Firmware | | ? | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ Drivers (typically, but not limited to, CPUFreq drivers) can register data in the EM framework using the em_register_perf_domain() API. The calling driver must provide a callback function with a standardized signature that will be used by the EM framework to build the power cost tables of the performance domain. This design should offer a lot of flexibility to calling drivers which are free of reading information from any location and to use any technique to compute power costs. Moreover, the capacity states registered by drivers in the EM framework are not required to match real performance states of the target. This is particularly important on targets where the performance states are not known by the OS. The power cost coefficients managed by the EM framework are specified in milli-watts. Although the two potential users of those coefficients (IPA and EAS) only need relative correctness, IPA specifically needs to compare the power of CPUs with the power of other components (GPUs, for example), which are still expressed in absolute terms in their respective subsystems. Hence, specifying the power of CPUs in milli-watts should help transitioning IPA to using the EM framework without introducing new problems by keeping units comparable across sub-systems. On the longer term, the EM of other devices than CPUs could also be managed by the EM framework, which would enable to remove the absolute unit. However, this is not absolutely required as a first step, so this extension of the EM framework is left for later. On the client side, the EM framework offers APIs to access the power cost tables of a CPU (em_cpu_get()), and to estimate the energy consumed by the CPUs of a performance domain (em_pd_energy()). Clients such as the task scheduler can then use these APIs to access the shared data structures holding the Energy Model of CPUs. Signed-off-by: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: adharmap@codeaurora.org Cc: chris.redpath@arm.com Cc: currojerez@riseup.net Cc: dietmar.eggemann@arm.com Cc: edubezval@gmail.com Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Cc: javi.merino@kernel.org Cc: joel@joelfernandes.org Cc: juri.lelli@redhat.com Cc: morten.rasmussen@arm.com Cc: patrick.bellasi@arm.com Cc: pkondeti@codeaurora.org Cc: skannan@codeaurora.org Cc: smuckle@google.com Cc: srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com Cc: thara.gopinath@linaro.org Cc: tkjos@google.com Cc: valentin.schneider@arm.com Cc: vincent.guittot@linaro.org Cc: viresh.kumar@linaro.org Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181203095628.11858-4-quentin.perret@arm.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2018-12-03 12:56:16 +03:00
* Return: the sum of the energy consumed by the CPUs of the domain assuming
* a capacity state satisfying the max utilization of the domain.
*/
static inline unsigned long em_cpu_energy(struct em_perf_domain *pd,
sched/cpufreq: Consider reduced CPU capacity in energy calculation Energy Aware Scheduling (EAS) needs to predict the decisions made by SchedUtil. The map_util_freq() exists to do that. There are corner cases where the max allowed frequency might be reduced (due to thermal). SchedUtil as a CPUFreq governor, is aware of that but EAS is not. This patch aims to address it. SchedUtil stores the maximum allowed frequency in 'sugov_policy::next_freq' field. EAS has to predict that value, which is the real used frequency. That value is made after a call to cpufreq_driver_resolve_freq() which clamps to the CPUFreq policy limits. In the existing code EAS is not able to predict that real frequency. This leads to energy estimation errors. To avoid wrong energy estimation in EAS (due to frequency miss prediction) make sure that the step which calculates Performance Domain frequency, is also aware of the allowed CPU capacity. Furthermore, modify map_util_freq() to not extend the frequency value. Instead, use map_util_perf() to extend the util value in both places: SchedUtil and EAS, but for EAS clamp it to max allowed CPU capacity. In the end, we achieve the same desirable behavior for both subsystems and alignment in regards to the real CPU frequency. Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Acked-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> (For the schedutil part) Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210614191238.23224-1-lukasz.luba@arm.com
2021-06-14 22:12:38 +03:00
unsigned long max_util, unsigned long sum_util,
unsigned long allowed_cpu_cap)
PM: Introduce an Energy Model management framework Several subsystems in the kernel (task scheduler and/or thermal at the time of writing) can benefit from knowing about the energy consumed by CPUs. Yet, this information can come from different sources (DT or firmware for example), in different formats, hence making it hard to exploit without a standard API. As an attempt to address this, introduce a centralized Energy Model (EM) management framework which aggregates the power values provided by drivers into a table for each performance domain in the system. The power cost tables are made available to interested clients (e.g. task scheduler or thermal) via platform-agnostic APIs. The overall design is represented by the diagram below (focused on Arm-related drivers as an example, but applicable to any architecture): +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | Thermal (IPA) | | Scheduler (EAS) | | Other | +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | | em_pd_energy() | | | em_cpu_get() | +-----------+ | +--------+ | | | v v v +---------------------+ | | | Energy Model | | | | Framework | | | +---------------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | em_register_perf_domain() +----------+ | +---------+ | | | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | cpufreq-dt | | arm_scmi | | Other | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | Device Tree | | Firmware | | ? | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ Drivers (typically, but not limited to, CPUFreq drivers) can register data in the EM framework using the em_register_perf_domain() API. The calling driver must provide a callback function with a standardized signature that will be used by the EM framework to build the power cost tables of the performance domain. This design should offer a lot of flexibility to calling drivers which are free of reading information from any location and to use any technique to compute power costs. Moreover, the capacity states registered by drivers in the EM framework are not required to match real performance states of the target. This is particularly important on targets where the performance states are not known by the OS. The power cost coefficients managed by the EM framework are specified in milli-watts. Although the two potential users of those coefficients (IPA and EAS) only need relative correctness, IPA specifically needs to compare the power of CPUs with the power of other components (GPUs, for example), which are still expressed in absolute terms in their respective subsystems. Hence, specifying the power of CPUs in milli-watts should help transitioning IPA to using the EM framework without introducing new problems by keeping units comparable across sub-systems. On the longer term, the EM of other devices than CPUs could also be managed by the EM framework, which would enable to remove the absolute unit. However, this is not absolutely required as a first step, so this extension of the EM framework is left for later. On the client side, the EM framework offers APIs to access the power cost tables of a CPU (em_cpu_get()), and to estimate the energy consumed by the CPUs of a performance domain (em_pd_energy()). Clients such as the task scheduler can then use these APIs to access the shared data structures holding the Energy Model of CPUs. Signed-off-by: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: adharmap@codeaurora.org Cc: chris.redpath@arm.com Cc: currojerez@riseup.net Cc: dietmar.eggemann@arm.com Cc: edubezval@gmail.com Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Cc: javi.merino@kernel.org Cc: joel@joelfernandes.org Cc: juri.lelli@redhat.com Cc: morten.rasmussen@arm.com Cc: patrick.bellasi@arm.com Cc: pkondeti@codeaurora.org Cc: skannan@codeaurora.org Cc: smuckle@google.com Cc: srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com Cc: thara.gopinath@linaro.org Cc: tkjos@google.com Cc: valentin.schneider@arm.com Cc: vincent.guittot@linaro.org Cc: viresh.kumar@linaro.org Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181203095628.11858-4-quentin.perret@arm.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2018-12-03 12:56:16 +03:00
{
unsigned long freq, scale_cpu;
struct em_perf_state *ps;
int cpu;
PM: Introduce an Energy Model management framework Several subsystems in the kernel (task scheduler and/or thermal at the time of writing) can benefit from knowing about the energy consumed by CPUs. Yet, this information can come from different sources (DT or firmware for example), in different formats, hence making it hard to exploit without a standard API. As an attempt to address this, introduce a centralized Energy Model (EM) management framework which aggregates the power values provided by drivers into a table for each performance domain in the system. The power cost tables are made available to interested clients (e.g. task scheduler or thermal) via platform-agnostic APIs. The overall design is represented by the diagram below (focused on Arm-related drivers as an example, but applicable to any architecture): +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | Thermal (IPA) | | Scheduler (EAS) | | Other | +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | | em_pd_energy() | | | em_cpu_get() | +-----------+ | +--------+ | | | v v v +---------------------+ | | | Energy Model | | | | Framework | | | +---------------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | em_register_perf_domain() +----------+ | +---------+ | | | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | cpufreq-dt | | arm_scmi | | Other | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | Device Tree | | Firmware | | ? | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ Drivers (typically, but not limited to, CPUFreq drivers) can register data in the EM framework using the em_register_perf_domain() API. The calling driver must provide a callback function with a standardized signature that will be used by the EM framework to build the power cost tables of the performance domain. This design should offer a lot of flexibility to calling drivers which are free of reading information from any location and to use any technique to compute power costs. Moreover, the capacity states registered by drivers in the EM framework are not required to match real performance states of the target. This is particularly important on targets where the performance states are not known by the OS. The power cost coefficients managed by the EM framework are specified in milli-watts. Although the two potential users of those coefficients (IPA and EAS) only need relative correctness, IPA specifically needs to compare the power of CPUs with the power of other components (GPUs, for example), which are still expressed in absolute terms in their respective subsystems. Hence, specifying the power of CPUs in milli-watts should help transitioning IPA to using the EM framework without introducing new problems by keeping units comparable across sub-systems. On the longer term, the EM of other devices than CPUs could also be managed by the EM framework, which would enable to remove the absolute unit. However, this is not absolutely required as a first step, so this extension of the EM framework is left for later. On the client side, the EM framework offers APIs to access the power cost tables of a CPU (em_cpu_get()), and to estimate the energy consumed by the CPUs of a performance domain (em_pd_energy()). Clients such as the task scheduler can then use these APIs to access the shared data structures holding the Energy Model of CPUs. Signed-off-by: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: adharmap@codeaurora.org Cc: chris.redpath@arm.com Cc: currojerez@riseup.net Cc: dietmar.eggemann@arm.com Cc: edubezval@gmail.com Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Cc: javi.merino@kernel.org Cc: joel@joelfernandes.org Cc: juri.lelli@redhat.com Cc: morten.rasmussen@arm.com Cc: patrick.bellasi@arm.com Cc: pkondeti@codeaurora.org Cc: skannan@codeaurora.org Cc: smuckle@google.com Cc: srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com Cc: thara.gopinath@linaro.org Cc: tkjos@google.com Cc: valentin.schneider@arm.com Cc: vincent.guittot@linaro.org Cc: viresh.kumar@linaro.org Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181203095628.11858-4-quentin.perret@arm.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2018-12-03 12:56:16 +03:00
if (!sum_util)
return 0;
PM: Introduce an Energy Model management framework Several subsystems in the kernel (task scheduler and/or thermal at the time of writing) can benefit from knowing about the energy consumed by CPUs. Yet, this information can come from different sources (DT or firmware for example), in different formats, hence making it hard to exploit without a standard API. As an attempt to address this, introduce a centralized Energy Model (EM) management framework which aggregates the power values provided by drivers into a table for each performance domain in the system. The power cost tables are made available to interested clients (e.g. task scheduler or thermal) via platform-agnostic APIs. The overall design is represented by the diagram below (focused on Arm-related drivers as an example, but applicable to any architecture): +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | Thermal (IPA) | | Scheduler (EAS) | | Other | +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | | em_pd_energy() | | | em_cpu_get() | +-----------+ | +--------+ | | | v v v +---------------------+ | | | Energy Model | | | | Framework | | | +---------------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | em_register_perf_domain() +----------+ | +---------+ | | | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | cpufreq-dt | | arm_scmi | | Other | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | Device Tree | | Firmware | | ? | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ Drivers (typically, but not limited to, CPUFreq drivers) can register data in the EM framework using the em_register_perf_domain() API. The calling driver must provide a callback function with a standardized signature that will be used by the EM framework to build the power cost tables of the performance domain. This design should offer a lot of flexibility to calling drivers which are free of reading information from any location and to use any technique to compute power costs. Moreover, the capacity states registered by drivers in the EM framework are not required to match real performance states of the target. This is particularly important on targets where the performance states are not known by the OS. The power cost coefficients managed by the EM framework are specified in milli-watts. Although the two potential users of those coefficients (IPA and EAS) only need relative correctness, IPA specifically needs to compare the power of CPUs with the power of other components (GPUs, for example), which are still expressed in absolute terms in their respective subsystems. Hence, specifying the power of CPUs in milli-watts should help transitioning IPA to using the EM framework without introducing new problems by keeping units comparable across sub-systems. On the longer term, the EM of other devices than CPUs could also be managed by the EM framework, which would enable to remove the absolute unit. However, this is not absolutely required as a first step, so this extension of the EM framework is left for later. On the client side, the EM framework offers APIs to access the power cost tables of a CPU (em_cpu_get()), and to estimate the energy consumed by the CPUs of a performance domain (em_pd_energy()). Clients such as the task scheduler can then use these APIs to access the shared data structures holding the Energy Model of CPUs. Signed-off-by: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: adharmap@codeaurora.org Cc: chris.redpath@arm.com Cc: currojerez@riseup.net Cc: dietmar.eggemann@arm.com Cc: edubezval@gmail.com Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Cc: javi.merino@kernel.org Cc: joel@joelfernandes.org Cc: juri.lelli@redhat.com Cc: morten.rasmussen@arm.com Cc: patrick.bellasi@arm.com Cc: pkondeti@codeaurora.org Cc: skannan@codeaurora.org Cc: smuckle@google.com Cc: srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com Cc: thara.gopinath@linaro.org Cc: tkjos@google.com Cc: valentin.schneider@arm.com Cc: vincent.guittot@linaro.org Cc: viresh.kumar@linaro.org Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181203095628.11858-4-quentin.perret@arm.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2018-12-03 12:56:16 +03:00
/*
* In order to predict the performance state, map the utilization of
* the most utilized CPU of the performance domain to a requested
sched/cpufreq: Consider reduced CPU capacity in energy calculation Energy Aware Scheduling (EAS) needs to predict the decisions made by SchedUtil. The map_util_freq() exists to do that. There are corner cases where the max allowed frequency might be reduced (due to thermal). SchedUtil as a CPUFreq governor, is aware of that but EAS is not. This patch aims to address it. SchedUtil stores the maximum allowed frequency in 'sugov_policy::next_freq' field. EAS has to predict that value, which is the real used frequency. That value is made after a call to cpufreq_driver_resolve_freq() which clamps to the CPUFreq policy limits. In the existing code EAS is not able to predict that real frequency. This leads to energy estimation errors. To avoid wrong energy estimation in EAS (due to frequency miss prediction) make sure that the step which calculates Performance Domain frequency, is also aware of the allowed CPU capacity. Furthermore, modify map_util_freq() to not extend the frequency value. Instead, use map_util_perf() to extend the util value in both places: SchedUtil and EAS, but for EAS clamp it to max allowed CPU capacity. In the end, we achieve the same desirable behavior for both subsystems and alignment in regards to the real CPU frequency. Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Acked-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> (For the schedutil part) Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210614191238.23224-1-lukasz.luba@arm.com
2021-06-14 22:12:38 +03:00
* frequency, like schedutil. Take also into account that the real
* frequency might be set lower (due to thermal capping). Thus, clamp
* max utilization to the allowed CPU capacity before calculating
* effective frequency.
PM: Introduce an Energy Model management framework Several subsystems in the kernel (task scheduler and/or thermal at the time of writing) can benefit from knowing about the energy consumed by CPUs. Yet, this information can come from different sources (DT or firmware for example), in different formats, hence making it hard to exploit without a standard API. As an attempt to address this, introduce a centralized Energy Model (EM) management framework which aggregates the power values provided by drivers into a table for each performance domain in the system. The power cost tables are made available to interested clients (e.g. task scheduler or thermal) via platform-agnostic APIs. The overall design is represented by the diagram below (focused on Arm-related drivers as an example, but applicable to any architecture): +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | Thermal (IPA) | | Scheduler (EAS) | | Other | +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | | em_pd_energy() | | | em_cpu_get() | +-----------+ | +--------+ | | | v v v +---------------------+ | | | Energy Model | | | | Framework | | | +---------------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | em_register_perf_domain() +----------+ | +---------+ | | | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | cpufreq-dt | | arm_scmi | | Other | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | Device Tree | | Firmware | | ? | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ Drivers (typically, but not limited to, CPUFreq drivers) can register data in the EM framework using the em_register_perf_domain() API. The calling driver must provide a callback function with a standardized signature that will be used by the EM framework to build the power cost tables of the performance domain. This design should offer a lot of flexibility to calling drivers which are free of reading information from any location and to use any technique to compute power costs. Moreover, the capacity states registered by drivers in the EM framework are not required to match real performance states of the target. This is particularly important on targets where the performance states are not known by the OS. The power cost coefficients managed by the EM framework are specified in milli-watts. Although the two potential users of those coefficients (IPA and EAS) only need relative correctness, IPA specifically needs to compare the power of CPUs with the power of other components (GPUs, for example), which are still expressed in absolute terms in their respective subsystems. Hence, specifying the power of CPUs in milli-watts should help transitioning IPA to using the EM framework without introducing new problems by keeping units comparable across sub-systems. On the longer term, the EM of other devices than CPUs could also be managed by the EM framework, which would enable to remove the absolute unit. However, this is not absolutely required as a first step, so this extension of the EM framework is left for later. On the client side, the EM framework offers APIs to access the power cost tables of a CPU (em_cpu_get()), and to estimate the energy consumed by the CPUs of a performance domain (em_pd_energy()). Clients such as the task scheduler can then use these APIs to access the shared data structures holding the Energy Model of CPUs. Signed-off-by: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: adharmap@codeaurora.org Cc: chris.redpath@arm.com Cc: currojerez@riseup.net Cc: dietmar.eggemann@arm.com Cc: edubezval@gmail.com Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Cc: javi.merino@kernel.org Cc: joel@joelfernandes.org Cc: juri.lelli@redhat.com Cc: morten.rasmussen@arm.com Cc: patrick.bellasi@arm.com Cc: pkondeti@codeaurora.org Cc: skannan@codeaurora.org Cc: smuckle@google.com Cc: srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com Cc: thara.gopinath@linaro.org Cc: tkjos@google.com Cc: valentin.schneider@arm.com Cc: vincent.guittot@linaro.org Cc: viresh.kumar@linaro.org Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181203095628.11858-4-quentin.perret@arm.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2018-12-03 12:56:16 +03:00
*/
cpu = cpumask_first(to_cpumask(pd->cpus));
scale_cpu = arch_scale_cpu_capacity(cpu);
ps = &pd->table[pd->nr_perf_states - 1];
sched/cpufreq: Consider reduced CPU capacity in energy calculation Energy Aware Scheduling (EAS) needs to predict the decisions made by SchedUtil. The map_util_freq() exists to do that. There are corner cases where the max allowed frequency might be reduced (due to thermal). SchedUtil as a CPUFreq governor, is aware of that but EAS is not. This patch aims to address it. SchedUtil stores the maximum allowed frequency in 'sugov_policy::next_freq' field. EAS has to predict that value, which is the real used frequency. That value is made after a call to cpufreq_driver_resolve_freq() which clamps to the CPUFreq policy limits. In the existing code EAS is not able to predict that real frequency. This leads to energy estimation errors. To avoid wrong energy estimation in EAS (due to frequency miss prediction) make sure that the step which calculates Performance Domain frequency, is also aware of the allowed CPU capacity. Furthermore, modify map_util_freq() to not extend the frequency value. Instead, use map_util_perf() to extend the util value in both places: SchedUtil and EAS, but for EAS clamp it to max allowed CPU capacity. In the end, we achieve the same desirable behavior for both subsystems and alignment in regards to the real CPU frequency. Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Acked-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> (For the schedutil part) Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210614191238.23224-1-lukasz.luba@arm.com
2021-06-14 22:12:38 +03:00
max_util = map_util_perf(max_util);
max_util = min(max_util, allowed_cpu_cap);
freq = map_util_freq(max_util, ps->frequency, scale_cpu);
PM: Introduce an Energy Model management framework Several subsystems in the kernel (task scheduler and/or thermal at the time of writing) can benefit from knowing about the energy consumed by CPUs. Yet, this information can come from different sources (DT or firmware for example), in different formats, hence making it hard to exploit without a standard API. As an attempt to address this, introduce a centralized Energy Model (EM) management framework which aggregates the power values provided by drivers into a table for each performance domain in the system. The power cost tables are made available to interested clients (e.g. task scheduler or thermal) via platform-agnostic APIs. The overall design is represented by the diagram below (focused on Arm-related drivers as an example, but applicable to any architecture): +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | Thermal (IPA) | | Scheduler (EAS) | | Other | +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | | em_pd_energy() | | | em_cpu_get() | +-----------+ | +--------+ | | | v v v +---------------------+ | | | Energy Model | | | | Framework | | | +---------------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | em_register_perf_domain() +----------+ | +---------+ | | | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | cpufreq-dt | | arm_scmi | | Other | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | Device Tree | | Firmware | | ? | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ Drivers (typically, but not limited to, CPUFreq drivers) can register data in the EM framework using the em_register_perf_domain() API. The calling driver must provide a callback function with a standardized signature that will be used by the EM framework to build the power cost tables of the performance domain. This design should offer a lot of flexibility to calling drivers which are free of reading information from any location and to use any technique to compute power costs. Moreover, the capacity states registered by drivers in the EM framework are not required to match real performance states of the target. This is particularly important on targets where the performance states are not known by the OS. The power cost coefficients managed by the EM framework are specified in milli-watts. Although the two potential users of those coefficients (IPA and EAS) only need relative correctness, IPA specifically needs to compare the power of CPUs with the power of other components (GPUs, for example), which are still expressed in absolute terms in their respective subsystems. Hence, specifying the power of CPUs in milli-watts should help transitioning IPA to using the EM framework without introducing new problems by keeping units comparable across sub-systems. On the longer term, the EM of other devices than CPUs could also be managed by the EM framework, which would enable to remove the absolute unit. However, this is not absolutely required as a first step, so this extension of the EM framework is left for later. On the client side, the EM framework offers APIs to access the power cost tables of a CPU (em_cpu_get()), and to estimate the energy consumed by the CPUs of a performance domain (em_pd_energy()). Clients such as the task scheduler can then use these APIs to access the shared data structures holding the Energy Model of CPUs. Signed-off-by: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: adharmap@codeaurora.org Cc: chris.redpath@arm.com Cc: currojerez@riseup.net Cc: dietmar.eggemann@arm.com Cc: edubezval@gmail.com Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Cc: javi.merino@kernel.org Cc: joel@joelfernandes.org Cc: juri.lelli@redhat.com Cc: morten.rasmussen@arm.com Cc: patrick.bellasi@arm.com Cc: pkondeti@codeaurora.org Cc: skannan@codeaurora.org Cc: smuckle@google.com Cc: srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com Cc: thara.gopinath@linaro.org Cc: tkjos@google.com Cc: valentin.schneider@arm.com Cc: vincent.guittot@linaro.org Cc: viresh.kumar@linaro.org Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181203095628.11858-4-quentin.perret@arm.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2018-12-03 12:56:16 +03:00
/*
* Find the lowest performance state of the Energy Model above the
PM: Introduce an Energy Model management framework Several subsystems in the kernel (task scheduler and/or thermal at the time of writing) can benefit from knowing about the energy consumed by CPUs. Yet, this information can come from different sources (DT or firmware for example), in different formats, hence making it hard to exploit without a standard API. As an attempt to address this, introduce a centralized Energy Model (EM) management framework which aggregates the power values provided by drivers into a table for each performance domain in the system. The power cost tables are made available to interested clients (e.g. task scheduler or thermal) via platform-agnostic APIs. The overall design is represented by the diagram below (focused on Arm-related drivers as an example, but applicable to any architecture): +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | Thermal (IPA) | | Scheduler (EAS) | | Other | +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | | em_pd_energy() | | | em_cpu_get() | +-----------+ | +--------+ | | | v v v +---------------------+ | | | Energy Model | | | | Framework | | | +---------------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | em_register_perf_domain() +----------+ | +---------+ | | | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | cpufreq-dt | | arm_scmi | | Other | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | Device Tree | | Firmware | | ? | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ Drivers (typically, but not limited to, CPUFreq drivers) can register data in the EM framework using the em_register_perf_domain() API. The calling driver must provide a callback function with a standardized signature that will be used by the EM framework to build the power cost tables of the performance domain. This design should offer a lot of flexibility to calling drivers which are free of reading information from any location and to use any technique to compute power costs. Moreover, the capacity states registered by drivers in the EM framework are not required to match real performance states of the target. This is particularly important on targets where the performance states are not known by the OS. The power cost coefficients managed by the EM framework are specified in milli-watts. Although the two potential users of those coefficients (IPA and EAS) only need relative correctness, IPA specifically needs to compare the power of CPUs with the power of other components (GPUs, for example), which are still expressed in absolute terms in their respective subsystems. Hence, specifying the power of CPUs in milli-watts should help transitioning IPA to using the EM framework without introducing new problems by keeping units comparable across sub-systems. On the longer term, the EM of other devices than CPUs could also be managed by the EM framework, which would enable to remove the absolute unit. However, this is not absolutely required as a first step, so this extension of the EM framework is left for later. On the client side, the EM framework offers APIs to access the power cost tables of a CPU (em_cpu_get()), and to estimate the energy consumed by the CPUs of a performance domain (em_pd_energy()). Clients such as the task scheduler can then use these APIs to access the shared data structures holding the Energy Model of CPUs. Signed-off-by: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: adharmap@codeaurora.org Cc: chris.redpath@arm.com Cc: currojerez@riseup.net Cc: dietmar.eggemann@arm.com Cc: edubezval@gmail.com Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Cc: javi.merino@kernel.org Cc: joel@joelfernandes.org Cc: juri.lelli@redhat.com Cc: morten.rasmussen@arm.com Cc: patrick.bellasi@arm.com Cc: pkondeti@codeaurora.org Cc: skannan@codeaurora.org Cc: smuckle@google.com Cc: srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com Cc: thara.gopinath@linaro.org Cc: tkjos@google.com Cc: valentin.schneider@arm.com Cc: vincent.guittot@linaro.org Cc: viresh.kumar@linaro.org Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181203095628.11858-4-quentin.perret@arm.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2018-12-03 12:56:16 +03:00
* requested frequency.
*/
ps = em_pd_get_efficient_state(pd, freq);
PM: Introduce an Energy Model management framework Several subsystems in the kernel (task scheduler and/or thermal at the time of writing) can benefit from knowing about the energy consumed by CPUs. Yet, this information can come from different sources (DT or firmware for example), in different formats, hence making it hard to exploit without a standard API. As an attempt to address this, introduce a centralized Energy Model (EM) management framework which aggregates the power values provided by drivers into a table for each performance domain in the system. The power cost tables are made available to interested clients (e.g. task scheduler or thermal) via platform-agnostic APIs. The overall design is represented by the diagram below (focused on Arm-related drivers as an example, but applicable to any architecture): +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | Thermal (IPA) | | Scheduler (EAS) | | Other | +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | | em_pd_energy() | | | em_cpu_get() | +-----------+ | +--------+ | | | v v v +---------------------+ | | | Energy Model | | | | Framework | | | +---------------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | em_register_perf_domain() +----------+ | +---------+ | | | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | cpufreq-dt | | arm_scmi | | Other | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | Device Tree | | Firmware | | ? | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ Drivers (typically, but not limited to, CPUFreq drivers) can register data in the EM framework using the em_register_perf_domain() API. The calling driver must provide a callback function with a standardized signature that will be used by the EM framework to build the power cost tables of the performance domain. This design should offer a lot of flexibility to calling drivers which are free of reading information from any location and to use any technique to compute power costs. Moreover, the capacity states registered by drivers in the EM framework are not required to match real performance states of the target. This is particularly important on targets where the performance states are not known by the OS. The power cost coefficients managed by the EM framework are specified in milli-watts. Although the two potential users of those coefficients (IPA and EAS) only need relative correctness, IPA specifically needs to compare the power of CPUs with the power of other components (GPUs, for example), which are still expressed in absolute terms in their respective subsystems. Hence, specifying the power of CPUs in milli-watts should help transitioning IPA to using the EM framework without introducing new problems by keeping units comparable across sub-systems. On the longer term, the EM of other devices than CPUs could also be managed by the EM framework, which would enable to remove the absolute unit. However, this is not absolutely required as a first step, so this extension of the EM framework is left for later. On the client side, the EM framework offers APIs to access the power cost tables of a CPU (em_cpu_get()), and to estimate the energy consumed by the CPUs of a performance domain (em_pd_energy()). Clients such as the task scheduler can then use these APIs to access the shared data structures holding the Energy Model of CPUs. Signed-off-by: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: adharmap@codeaurora.org Cc: chris.redpath@arm.com Cc: currojerez@riseup.net Cc: dietmar.eggemann@arm.com Cc: edubezval@gmail.com Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Cc: javi.merino@kernel.org Cc: joel@joelfernandes.org Cc: juri.lelli@redhat.com Cc: morten.rasmussen@arm.com Cc: patrick.bellasi@arm.com Cc: pkondeti@codeaurora.org Cc: skannan@codeaurora.org Cc: smuckle@google.com Cc: srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com Cc: thara.gopinath@linaro.org Cc: tkjos@google.com Cc: valentin.schneider@arm.com Cc: vincent.guittot@linaro.org Cc: viresh.kumar@linaro.org Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181203095628.11858-4-quentin.perret@arm.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2018-12-03 12:56:16 +03:00
/*
* The capacity of a CPU in the domain at the performance state (ps)
PM: Introduce an Energy Model management framework Several subsystems in the kernel (task scheduler and/or thermal at the time of writing) can benefit from knowing about the energy consumed by CPUs. Yet, this information can come from different sources (DT or firmware for example), in different formats, hence making it hard to exploit without a standard API. As an attempt to address this, introduce a centralized Energy Model (EM) management framework which aggregates the power values provided by drivers into a table for each performance domain in the system. The power cost tables are made available to interested clients (e.g. task scheduler or thermal) via platform-agnostic APIs. The overall design is represented by the diagram below (focused on Arm-related drivers as an example, but applicable to any architecture): +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | Thermal (IPA) | | Scheduler (EAS) | | Other | +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | | em_pd_energy() | | | em_cpu_get() | +-----------+ | +--------+ | | | v v v +---------------------+ | | | Energy Model | | | | Framework | | | +---------------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | em_register_perf_domain() +----------+ | +---------+ | | | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | cpufreq-dt | | arm_scmi | | Other | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | Device Tree | | Firmware | | ? | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ Drivers (typically, but not limited to, CPUFreq drivers) can register data in the EM framework using the em_register_perf_domain() API. The calling driver must provide a callback function with a standardized signature that will be used by the EM framework to build the power cost tables of the performance domain. This design should offer a lot of flexibility to calling drivers which are free of reading information from any location and to use any technique to compute power costs. Moreover, the capacity states registered by drivers in the EM framework are not required to match real performance states of the target. This is particularly important on targets where the performance states are not known by the OS. The power cost coefficients managed by the EM framework are specified in milli-watts. Although the two potential users of those coefficients (IPA and EAS) only need relative correctness, IPA specifically needs to compare the power of CPUs with the power of other components (GPUs, for example), which are still expressed in absolute terms in their respective subsystems. Hence, specifying the power of CPUs in milli-watts should help transitioning IPA to using the EM framework without introducing new problems by keeping units comparable across sub-systems. On the longer term, the EM of other devices than CPUs could also be managed by the EM framework, which would enable to remove the absolute unit. However, this is not absolutely required as a first step, so this extension of the EM framework is left for later. On the client side, the EM framework offers APIs to access the power cost tables of a CPU (em_cpu_get()), and to estimate the energy consumed by the CPUs of a performance domain (em_pd_energy()). Clients such as the task scheduler can then use these APIs to access the shared data structures holding the Energy Model of CPUs. Signed-off-by: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: adharmap@codeaurora.org Cc: chris.redpath@arm.com Cc: currojerez@riseup.net Cc: dietmar.eggemann@arm.com Cc: edubezval@gmail.com Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Cc: javi.merino@kernel.org Cc: joel@joelfernandes.org Cc: juri.lelli@redhat.com Cc: morten.rasmussen@arm.com Cc: patrick.bellasi@arm.com Cc: pkondeti@codeaurora.org Cc: skannan@codeaurora.org Cc: smuckle@google.com Cc: srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com Cc: thara.gopinath@linaro.org Cc: tkjos@google.com Cc: valentin.schneider@arm.com Cc: vincent.guittot@linaro.org Cc: viresh.kumar@linaro.org Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181203095628.11858-4-quentin.perret@arm.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2018-12-03 12:56:16 +03:00
* can be computed as:
*
* ps->freq * scale_cpu
* ps->cap = -------------------- (1)
PM: Introduce an Energy Model management framework Several subsystems in the kernel (task scheduler and/or thermal at the time of writing) can benefit from knowing about the energy consumed by CPUs. Yet, this information can come from different sources (DT or firmware for example), in different formats, hence making it hard to exploit without a standard API. As an attempt to address this, introduce a centralized Energy Model (EM) management framework which aggregates the power values provided by drivers into a table for each performance domain in the system. The power cost tables are made available to interested clients (e.g. task scheduler or thermal) via platform-agnostic APIs. The overall design is represented by the diagram below (focused on Arm-related drivers as an example, but applicable to any architecture): +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | Thermal (IPA) | | Scheduler (EAS) | | Other | +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | | em_pd_energy() | | | em_cpu_get() | +-----------+ | +--------+ | | | v v v +---------------------+ | | | Energy Model | | | | Framework | | | +---------------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | em_register_perf_domain() +----------+ | +---------+ | | | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | cpufreq-dt | | arm_scmi | | Other | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | Device Tree | | Firmware | | ? | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ Drivers (typically, but not limited to, CPUFreq drivers) can register data in the EM framework using the em_register_perf_domain() API. The calling driver must provide a callback function with a standardized signature that will be used by the EM framework to build the power cost tables of the performance domain. This design should offer a lot of flexibility to calling drivers which are free of reading information from any location and to use any technique to compute power costs. Moreover, the capacity states registered by drivers in the EM framework are not required to match real performance states of the target. This is particularly important on targets where the performance states are not known by the OS. The power cost coefficients managed by the EM framework are specified in milli-watts. Although the two potential users of those coefficients (IPA and EAS) only need relative correctness, IPA specifically needs to compare the power of CPUs with the power of other components (GPUs, for example), which are still expressed in absolute terms in their respective subsystems. Hence, specifying the power of CPUs in milli-watts should help transitioning IPA to using the EM framework without introducing new problems by keeping units comparable across sub-systems. On the longer term, the EM of other devices than CPUs could also be managed by the EM framework, which would enable to remove the absolute unit. However, this is not absolutely required as a first step, so this extension of the EM framework is left for later. On the client side, the EM framework offers APIs to access the power cost tables of a CPU (em_cpu_get()), and to estimate the energy consumed by the CPUs of a performance domain (em_pd_energy()). Clients such as the task scheduler can then use these APIs to access the shared data structures holding the Energy Model of CPUs. Signed-off-by: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: adharmap@codeaurora.org Cc: chris.redpath@arm.com Cc: currojerez@riseup.net Cc: dietmar.eggemann@arm.com Cc: edubezval@gmail.com Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Cc: javi.merino@kernel.org Cc: joel@joelfernandes.org Cc: juri.lelli@redhat.com Cc: morten.rasmussen@arm.com Cc: patrick.bellasi@arm.com Cc: pkondeti@codeaurora.org Cc: skannan@codeaurora.org Cc: smuckle@google.com Cc: srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com Cc: thara.gopinath@linaro.org Cc: tkjos@google.com Cc: valentin.schneider@arm.com Cc: vincent.guittot@linaro.org Cc: viresh.kumar@linaro.org Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181203095628.11858-4-quentin.perret@arm.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2018-12-03 12:56:16 +03:00
* cpu_max_freq
*
* So, ignoring the costs of idle states (which are not available in
* the EM), the energy consumed by this CPU at that performance state
* is estimated as:
PM: Introduce an Energy Model management framework Several subsystems in the kernel (task scheduler and/or thermal at the time of writing) can benefit from knowing about the energy consumed by CPUs. Yet, this information can come from different sources (DT or firmware for example), in different formats, hence making it hard to exploit without a standard API. As an attempt to address this, introduce a centralized Energy Model (EM) management framework which aggregates the power values provided by drivers into a table for each performance domain in the system. The power cost tables are made available to interested clients (e.g. task scheduler or thermal) via platform-agnostic APIs. The overall design is represented by the diagram below (focused on Arm-related drivers as an example, but applicable to any architecture): +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | Thermal (IPA) | | Scheduler (EAS) | | Other | +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | | em_pd_energy() | | | em_cpu_get() | +-----------+ | +--------+ | | | v v v +---------------------+ | | | Energy Model | | | | Framework | | | +---------------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | em_register_perf_domain() +----------+ | +---------+ | | | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | cpufreq-dt | | arm_scmi | | Other | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | Device Tree | | Firmware | | ? | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ Drivers (typically, but not limited to, CPUFreq drivers) can register data in the EM framework using the em_register_perf_domain() API. The calling driver must provide a callback function with a standardized signature that will be used by the EM framework to build the power cost tables of the performance domain. This design should offer a lot of flexibility to calling drivers which are free of reading information from any location and to use any technique to compute power costs. Moreover, the capacity states registered by drivers in the EM framework are not required to match real performance states of the target. This is particularly important on targets where the performance states are not known by the OS. The power cost coefficients managed by the EM framework are specified in milli-watts. Although the two potential users of those coefficients (IPA and EAS) only need relative correctness, IPA specifically needs to compare the power of CPUs with the power of other components (GPUs, for example), which are still expressed in absolute terms in their respective subsystems. Hence, specifying the power of CPUs in milli-watts should help transitioning IPA to using the EM framework without introducing new problems by keeping units comparable across sub-systems. On the longer term, the EM of other devices than CPUs could also be managed by the EM framework, which would enable to remove the absolute unit. However, this is not absolutely required as a first step, so this extension of the EM framework is left for later. On the client side, the EM framework offers APIs to access the power cost tables of a CPU (em_cpu_get()), and to estimate the energy consumed by the CPUs of a performance domain (em_pd_energy()). Clients such as the task scheduler can then use these APIs to access the shared data structures holding the Energy Model of CPUs. Signed-off-by: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: adharmap@codeaurora.org Cc: chris.redpath@arm.com Cc: currojerez@riseup.net Cc: dietmar.eggemann@arm.com Cc: edubezval@gmail.com Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Cc: javi.merino@kernel.org Cc: joel@joelfernandes.org Cc: juri.lelli@redhat.com Cc: morten.rasmussen@arm.com Cc: patrick.bellasi@arm.com Cc: pkondeti@codeaurora.org Cc: skannan@codeaurora.org Cc: smuckle@google.com Cc: srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com Cc: thara.gopinath@linaro.org Cc: tkjos@google.com Cc: valentin.schneider@arm.com Cc: vincent.guittot@linaro.org Cc: viresh.kumar@linaro.org Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181203095628.11858-4-quentin.perret@arm.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2018-12-03 12:56:16 +03:00
*
* ps->power * cpu_util
PM: Introduce an Energy Model management framework Several subsystems in the kernel (task scheduler and/or thermal at the time of writing) can benefit from knowing about the energy consumed by CPUs. Yet, this information can come from different sources (DT or firmware for example), in different formats, hence making it hard to exploit without a standard API. As an attempt to address this, introduce a centralized Energy Model (EM) management framework which aggregates the power values provided by drivers into a table for each performance domain in the system. The power cost tables are made available to interested clients (e.g. task scheduler or thermal) via platform-agnostic APIs. The overall design is represented by the diagram below (focused on Arm-related drivers as an example, but applicable to any architecture): +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | Thermal (IPA) | | Scheduler (EAS) | | Other | +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | | em_pd_energy() | | | em_cpu_get() | +-----------+ | +--------+ | | | v v v +---------------------+ | | | Energy Model | | | | Framework | | | +---------------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | em_register_perf_domain() +----------+ | +---------+ | | | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | cpufreq-dt | | arm_scmi | | Other | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | Device Tree | | Firmware | | ? | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ Drivers (typically, but not limited to, CPUFreq drivers) can register data in the EM framework using the em_register_perf_domain() API. The calling driver must provide a callback function with a standardized signature that will be used by the EM framework to build the power cost tables of the performance domain. This design should offer a lot of flexibility to calling drivers which are free of reading information from any location and to use any technique to compute power costs. Moreover, the capacity states registered by drivers in the EM framework are not required to match real performance states of the target. This is particularly important on targets where the performance states are not known by the OS. The power cost coefficients managed by the EM framework are specified in milli-watts. Although the two potential users of those coefficients (IPA and EAS) only need relative correctness, IPA specifically needs to compare the power of CPUs with the power of other components (GPUs, for example), which are still expressed in absolute terms in their respective subsystems. Hence, specifying the power of CPUs in milli-watts should help transitioning IPA to using the EM framework without introducing new problems by keeping units comparable across sub-systems. On the longer term, the EM of other devices than CPUs could also be managed by the EM framework, which would enable to remove the absolute unit. However, this is not absolutely required as a first step, so this extension of the EM framework is left for later. On the client side, the EM framework offers APIs to access the power cost tables of a CPU (em_cpu_get()), and to estimate the energy consumed by the CPUs of a performance domain (em_pd_energy()). Clients such as the task scheduler can then use these APIs to access the shared data structures holding the Energy Model of CPUs. Signed-off-by: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: adharmap@codeaurora.org Cc: chris.redpath@arm.com Cc: currojerez@riseup.net Cc: dietmar.eggemann@arm.com Cc: edubezval@gmail.com Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Cc: javi.merino@kernel.org Cc: joel@joelfernandes.org Cc: juri.lelli@redhat.com Cc: morten.rasmussen@arm.com Cc: patrick.bellasi@arm.com Cc: pkondeti@codeaurora.org Cc: skannan@codeaurora.org Cc: smuckle@google.com Cc: srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com Cc: thara.gopinath@linaro.org Cc: tkjos@google.com Cc: valentin.schneider@arm.com Cc: vincent.guittot@linaro.org Cc: viresh.kumar@linaro.org Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181203095628.11858-4-quentin.perret@arm.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2018-12-03 12:56:16 +03:00
* cpu_nrg = -------------------- (2)
* ps->cap
PM: Introduce an Energy Model management framework Several subsystems in the kernel (task scheduler and/or thermal at the time of writing) can benefit from knowing about the energy consumed by CPUs. Yet, this information can come from different sources (DT or firmware for example), in different formats, hence making it hard to exploit without a standard API. As an attempt to address this, introduce a centralized Energy Model (EM) management framework which aggregates the power values provided by drivers into a table for each performance domain in the system. The power cost tables are made available to interested clients (e.g. task scheduler or thermal) via platform-agnostic APIs. The overall design is represented by the diagram below (focused on Arm-related drivers as an example, but applicable to any architecture): +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | Thermal (IPA) | | Scheduler (EAS) | | Other | +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | | em_pd_energy() | | | em_cpu_get() | +-----------+ | +--------+ | | | v v v +---------------------+ | | | Energy Model | | | | Framework | | | +---------------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | em_register_perf_domain() +----------+ | +---------+ | | | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | cpufreq-dt | | arm_scmi | | Other | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | Device Tree | | Firmware | | ? | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ Drivers (typically, but not limited to, CPUFreq drivers) can register data in the EM framework using the em_register_perf_domain() API. The calling driver must provide a callback function with a standardized signature that will be used by the EM framework to build the power cost tables of the performance domain. This design should offer a lot of flexibility to calling drivers which are free of reading information from any location and to use any technique to compute power costs. Moreover, the capacity states registered by drivers in the EM framework are not required to match real performance states of the target. This is particularly important on targets where the performance states are not known by the OS. The power cost coefficients managed by the EM framework are specified in milli-watts. Although the two potential users of those coefficients (IPA and EAS) only need relative correctness, IPA specifically needs to compare the power of CPUs with the power of other components (GPUs, for example), which are still expressed in absolute terms in their respective subsystems. Hence, specifying the power of CPUs in milli-watts should help transitioning IPA to using the EM framework without introducing new problems by keeping units comparable across sub-systems. On the longer term, the EM of other devices than CPUs could also be managed by the EM framework, which would enable to remove the absolute unit. However, this is not absolutely required as a first step, so this extension of the EM framework is left for later. On the client side, the EM framework offers APIs to access the power cost tables of a CPU (em_cpu_get()), and to estimate the energy consumed by the CPUs of a performance domain (em_pd_energy()). Clients such as the task scheduler can then use these APIs to access the shared data structures holding the Energy Model of CPUs. Signed-off-by: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: adharmap@codeaurora.org Cc: chris.redpath@arm.com Cc: currojerez@riseup.net Cc: dietmar.eggemann@arm.com Cc: edubezval@gmail.com Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Cc: javi.merino@kernel.org Cc: joel@joelfernandes.org Cc: juri.lelli@redhat.com Cc: morten.rasmussen@arm.com Cc: patrick.bellasi@arm.com Cc: pkondeti@codeaurora.org Cc: skannan@codeaurora.org Cc: smuckle@google.com Cc: srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com Cc: thara.gopinath@linaro.org Cc: tkjos@google.com Cc: valentin.schneider@arm.com Cc: vincent.guittot@linaro.org Cc: viresh.kumar@linaro.org Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181203095628.11858-4-quentin.perret@arm.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2018-12-03 12:56:16 +03:00
*
* since 'cpu_util / ps->cap' represents its percentage of busy time.
PM: Introduce an Energy Model management framework Several subsystems in the kernel (task scheduler and/or thermal at the time of writing) can benefit from knowing about the energy consumed by CPUs. Yet, this information can come from different sources (DT or firmware for example), in different formats, hence making it hard to exploit without a standard API. As an attempt to address this, introduce a centralized Energy Model (EM) management framework which aggregates the power values provided by drivers into a table for each performance domain in the system. The power cost tables are made available to interested clients (e.g. task scheduler or thermal) via platform-agnostic APIs. The overall design is represented by the diagram below (focused on Arm-related drivers as an example, but applicable to any architecture): +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | Thermal (IPA) | | Scheduler (EAS) | | Other | +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | | em_pd_energy() | | | em_cpu_get() | +-----------+ | +--------+ | | | v v v +---------------------+ | | | Energy Model | | | | Framework | | | +---------------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | em_register_perf_domain() +----------+ | +---------+ | | | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | cpufreq-dt | | arm_scmi | | Other | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | Device Tree | | Firmware | | ? | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ Drivers (typically, but not limited to, CPUFreq drivers) can register data in the EM framework using the em_register_perf_domain() API. The calling driver must provide a callback function with a standardized signature that will be used by the EM framework to build the power cost tables of the performance domain. This design should offer a lot of flexibility to calling drivers which are free of reading information from any location and to use any technique to compute power costs. Moreover, the capacity states registered by drivers in the EM framework are not required to match real performance states of the target. This is particularly important on targets where the performance states are not known by the OS. The power cost coefficients managed by the EM framework are specified in milli-watts. Although the two potential users of those coefficients (IPA and EAS) only need relative correctness, IPA specifically needs to compare the power of CPUs with the power of other components (GPUs, for example), which are still expressed in absolute terms in their respective subsystems. Hence, specifying the power of CPUs in milli-watts should help transitioning IPA to using the EM framework without introducing new problems by keeping units comparable across sub-systems. On the longer term, the EM of other devices than CPUs could also be managed by the EM framework, which would enable to remove the absolute unit. However, this is not absolutely required as a first step, so this extension of the EM framework is left for later. On the client side, the EM framework offers APIs to access the power cost tables of a CPU (em_cpu_get()), and to estimate the energy consumed by the CPUs of a performance domain (em_pd_energy()). Clients such as the task scheduler can then use these APIs to access the shared data structures holding the Energy Model of CPUs. Signed-off-by: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: adharmap@codeaurora.org Cc: chris.redpath@arm.com Cc: currojerez@riseup.net Cc: dietmar.eggemann@arm.com Cc: edubezval@gmail.com Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Cc: javi.merino@kernel.org Cc: joel@joelfernandes.org Cc: juri.lelli@redhat.com Cc: morten.rasmussen@arm.com Cc: patrick.bellasi@arm.com Cc: pkondeti@codeaurora.org Cc: skannan@codeaurora.org Cc: smuckle@google.com Cc: srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com Cc: thara.gopinath@linaro.org Cc: tkjos@google.com Cc: valentin.schneider@arm.com Cc: vincent.guittot@linaro.org Cc: viresh.kumar@linaro.org Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181203095628.11858-4-quentin.perret@arm.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2018-12-03 12:56:16 +03:00
*
* NOTE: Although the result of this computation actually is in
* units of power, it can be manipulated as an energy value
* over a scheduling period, since it is assumed to be
* constant during that interval.
*
* By injecting (1) in (2), 'cpu_nrg' can be re-expressed as a product
* of two terms:
*
* ps->power * cpu_max_freq cpu_util
PM: Introduce an Energy Model management framework Several subsystems in the kernel (task scheduler and/or thermal at the time of writing) can benefit from knowing about the energy consumed by CPUs. Yet, this information can come from different sources (DT or firmware for example), in different formats, hence making it hard to exploit without a standard API. As an attempt to address this, introduce a centralized Energy Model (EM) management framework which aggregates the power values provided by drivers into a table for each performance domain in the system. The power cost tables are made available to interested clients (e.g. task scheduler or thermal) via platform-agnostic APIs. The overall design is represented by the diagram below (focused on Arm-related drivers as an example, but applicable to any architecture): +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | Thermal (IPA) | | Scheduler (EAS) | | Other | +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | | em_pd_energy() | | | em_cpu_get() | +-----------+ | +--------+ | | | v v v +---------------------+ | | | Energy Model | | | | Framework | | | +---------------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | em_register_perf_domain() +----------+ | +---------+ | | | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | cpufreq-dt | | arm_scmi | | Other | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | Device Tree | | Firmware | | ? | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ Drivers (typically, but not limited to, CPUFreq drivers) can register data in the EM framework using the em_register_perf_domain() API. The calling driver must provide a callback function with a standardized signature that will be used by the EM framework to build the power cost tables of the performance domain. This design should offer a lot of flexibility to calling drivers which are free of reading information from any location and to use any technique to compute power costs. Moreover, the capacity states registered by drivers in the EM framework are not required to match real performance states of the target. This is particularly important on targets where the performance states are not known by the OS. The power cost coefficients managed by the EM framework are specified in milli-watts. Although the two potential users of those coefficients (IPA and EAS) only need relative correctness, IPA specifically needs to compare the power of CPUs with the power of other components (GPUs, for example), which are still expressed in absolute terms in their respective subsystems. Hence, specifying the power of CPUs in milli-watts should help transitioning IPA to using the EM framework without introducing new problems by keeping units comparable across sub-systems. On the longer term, the EM of other devices than CPUs could also be managed by the EM framework, which would enable to remove the absolute unit. However, this is not absolutely required as a first step, so this extension of the EM framework is left for later. On the client side, the EM framework offers APIs to access the power cost tables of a CPU (em_cpu_get()), and to estimate the energy consumed by the CPUs of a performance domain (em_pd_energy()). Clients such as the task scheduler can then use these APIs to access the shared data structures holding the Energy Model of CPUs. Signed-off-by: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: adharmap@codeaurora.org Cc: chris.redpath@arm.com Cc: currojerez@riseup.net Cc: dietmar.eggemann@arm.com Cc: edubezval@gmail.com Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Cc: javi.merino@kernel.org Cc: joel@joelfernandes.org Cc: juri.lelli@redhat.com Cc: morten.rasmussen@arm.com Cc: patrick.bellasi@arm.com Cc: pkondeti@codeaurora.org Cc: skannan@codeaurora.org Cc: smuckle@google.com Cc: srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com Cc: thara.gopinath@linaro.org Cc: tkjos@google.com Cc: valentin.schneider@arm.com Cc: vincent.guittot@linaro.org Cc: viresh.kumar@linaro.org Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181203095628.11858-4-quentin.perret@arm.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2018-12-03 12:56:16 +03:00
* cpu_nrg = ------------------------ * --------- (3)
* ps->freq scale_cpu
PM: Introduce an Energy Model management framework Several subsystems in the kernel (task scheduler and/or thermal at the time of writing) can benefit from knowing about the energy consumed by CPUs. Yet, this information can come from different sources (DT or firmware for example), in different formats, hence making it hard to exploit without a standard API. As an attempt to address this, introduce a centralized Energy Model (EM) management framework which aggregates the power values provided by drivers into a table for each performance domain in the system. The power cost tables are made available to interested clients (e.g. task scheduler or thermal) via platform-agnostic APIs. The overall design is represented by the diagram below (focused on Arm-related drivers as an example, but applicable to any architecture): +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | Thermal (IPA) | | Scheduler (EAS) | | Other | +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | | em_pd_energy() | | | em_cpu_get() | +-----------+ | +--------+ | | | v v v +---------------------+ | | | Energy Model | | | | Framework | | | +---------------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | em_register_perf_domain() +----------+ | +---------+ | | | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | cpufreq-dt | | arm_scmi | | Other | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | Device Tree | | Firmware | | ? | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ Drivers (typically, but not limited to, CPUFreq drivers) can register data in the EM framework using the em_register_perf_domain() API. The calling driver must provide a callback function with a standardized signature that will be used by the EM framework to build the power cost tables of the performance domain. This design should offer a lot of flexibility to calling drivers which are free of reading information from any location and to use any technique to compute power costs. Moreover, the capacity states registered by drivers in the EM framework are not required to match real performance states of the target. This is particularly important on targets where the performance states are not known by the OS. The power cost coefficients managed by the EM framework are specified in milli-watts. Although the two potential users of those coefficients (IPA and EAS) only need relative correctness, IPA specifically needs to compare the power of CPUs with the power of other components (GPUs, for example), which are still expressed in absolute terms in their respective subsystems. Hence, specifying the power of CPUs in milli-watts should help transitioning IPA to using the EM framework without introducing new problems by keeping units comparable across sub-systems. On the longer term, the EM of other devices than CPUs could also be managed by the EM framework, which would enable to remove the absolute unit. However, this is not absolutely required as a first step, so this extension of the EM framework is left for later. On the client side, the EM framework offers APIs to access the power cost tables of a CPU (em_cpu_get()), and to estimate the energy consumed by the CPUs of a performance domain (em_pd_energy()). Clients such as the task scheduler can then use these APIs to access the shared data structures holding the Energy Model of CPUs. Signed-off-by: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: adharmap@codeaurora.org Cc: chris.redpath@arm.com Cc: currojerez@riseup.net Cc: dietmar.eggemann@arm.com Cc: edubezval@gmail.com Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Cc: javi.merino@kernel.org Cc: joel@joelfernandes.org Cc: juri.lelli@redhat.com Cc: morten.rasmussen@arm.com Cc: patrick.bellasi@arm.com Cc: pkondeti@codeaurora.org Cc: skannan@codeaurora.org Cc: smuckle@google.com Cc: srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com Cc: thara.gopinath@linaro.org Cc: tkjos@google.com Cc: valentin.schneider@arm.com Cc: vincent.guittot@linaro.org Cc: viresh.kumar@linaro.org Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181203095628.11858-4-quentin.perret@arm.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2018-12-03 12:56:16 +03:00
*
* The first term is static, and is stored in the em_perf_state struct
* as 'ps->cost'.
PM: Introduce an Energy Model management framework Several subsystems in the kernel (task scheduler and/or thermal at the time of writing) can benefit from knowing about the energy consumed by CPUs. Yet, this information can come from different sources (DT or firmware for example), in different formats, hence making it hard to exploit without a standard API. As an attempt to address this, introduce a centralized Energy Model (EM) management framework which aggregates the power values provided by drivers into a table for each performance domain in the system. The power cost tables are made available to interested clients (e.g. task scheduler or thermal) via platform-agnostic APIs. The overall design is represented by the diagram below (focused on Arm-related drivers as an example, but applicable to any architecture): +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | Thermal (IPA) | | Scheduler (EAS) | | Other | +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | | em_pd_energy() | | | em_cpu_get() | +-----------+ | +--------+ | | | v v v +---------------------+ | | | Energy Model | | | | Framework | | | +---------------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | em_register_perf_domain() +----------+ | +---------+ | | | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | cpufreq-dt | | arm_scmi | | Other | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | Device Tree | | Firmware | | ? | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ Drivers (typically, but not limited to, CPUFreq drivers) can register data in the EM framework using the em_register_perf_domain() API. The calling driver must provide a callback function with a standardized signature that will be used by the EM framework to build the power cost tables of the performance domain. This design should offer a lot of flexibility to calling drivers which are free of reading information from any location and to use any technique to compute power costs. Moreover, the capacity states registered by drivers in the EM framework are not required to match real performance states of the target. This is particularly important on targets where the performance states are not known by the OS. The power cost coefficients managed by the EM framework are specified in milli-watts. Although the two potential users of those coefficients (IPA and EAS) only need relative correctness, IPA specifically needs to compare the power of CPUs with the power of other components (GPUs, for example), which are still expressed in absolute terms in their respective subsystems. Hence, specifying the power of CPUs in milli-watts should help transitioning IPA to using the EM framework without introducing new problems by keeping units comparable across sub-systems. On the longer term, the EM of other devices than CPUs could also be managed by the EM framework, which would enable to remove the absolute unit. However, this is not absolutely required as a first step, so this extension of the EM framework is left for later. On the client side, the EM framework offers APIs to access the power cost tables of a CPU (em_cpu_get()), and to estimate the energy consumed by the CPUs of a performance domain (em_pd_energy()). Clients such as the task scheduler can then use these APIs to access the shared data structures holding the Energy Model of CPUs. Signed-off-by: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: adharmap@codeaurora.org Cc: chris.redpath@arm.com Cc: currojerez@riseup.net Cc: dietmar.eggemann@arm.com Cc: edubezval@gmail.com Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Cc: javi.merino@kernel.org Cc: joel@joelfernandes.org Cc: juri.lelli@redhat.com Cc: morten.rasmussen@arm.com Cc: patrick.bellasi@arm.com Cc: pkondeti@codeaurora.org Cc: skannan@codeaurora.org Cc: smuckle@google.com Cc: srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com Cc: thara.gopinath@linaro.org Cc: tkjos@google.com Cc: valentin.schneider@arm.com Cc: vincent.guittot@linaro.org Cc: viresh.kumar@linaro.org Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181203095628.11858-4-quentin.perret@arm.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2018-12-03 12:56:16 +03:00
*
* Since all CPUs of the domain have the same micro-architecture, they
* share the same 'ps->cost', and the same CPU capacity. Hence, the
PM: Introduce an Energy Model management framework Several subsystems in the kernel (task scheduler and/or thermal at the time of writing) can benefit from knowing about the energy consumed by CPUs. Yet, this information can come from different sources (DT or firmware for example), in different formats, hence making it hard to exploit without a standard API. As an attempt to address this, introduce a centralized Energy Model (EM) management framework which aggregates the power values provided by drivers into a table for each performance domain in the system. The power cost tables are made available to interested clients (e.g. task scheduler or thermal) via platform-agnostic APIs. The overall design is represented by the diagram below (focused on Arm-related drivers as an example, but applicable to any architecture): +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | Thermal (IPA) | | Scheduler (EAS) | | Other | +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | | em_pd_energy() | | | em_cpu_get() | +-----------+ | +--------+ | | | v v v +---------------------+ | | | Energy Model | | | | Framework | | | +---------------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | em_register_perf_domain() +----------+ | +---------+ | | | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | cpufreq-dt | | arm_scmi | | Other | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | Device Tree | | Firmware | | ? | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ Drivers (typically, but not limited to, CPUFreq drivers) can register data in the EM framework using the em_register_perf_domain() API. The calling driver must provide a callback function with a standardized signature that will be used by the EM framework to build the power cost tables of the performance domain. This design should offer a lot of flexibility to calling drivers which are free of reading information from any location and to use any technique to compute power costs. Moreover, the capacity states registered by drivers in the EM framework are not required to match real performance states of the target. This is particularly important on targets where the performance states are not known by the OS. The power cost coefficients managed by the EM framework are specified in milli-watts. Although the two potential users of those coefficients (IPA and EAS) only need relative correctness, IPA specifically needs to compare the power of CPUs with the power of other components (GPUs, for example), which are still expressed in absolute terms in their respective subsystems. Hence, specifying the power of CPUs in milli-watts should help transitioning IPA to using the EM framework without introducing new problems by keeping units comparable across sub-systems. On the longer term, the EM of other devices than CPUs could also be managed by the EM framework, which would enable to remove the absolute unit. However, this is not absolutely required as a first step, so this extension of the EM framework is left for later. On the client side, the EM framework offers APIs to access the power cost tables of a CPU (em_cpu_get()), and to estimate the energy consumed by the CPUs of a performance domain (em_pd_energy()). Clients such as the task scheduler can then use these APIs to access the shared data structures holding the Energy Model of CPUs. Signed-off-by: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: adharmap@codeaurora.org Cc: chris.redpath@arm.com Cc: currojerez@riseup.net Cc: dietmar.eggemann@arm.com Cc: edubezval@gmail.com Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Cc: javi.merino@kernel.org Cc: joel@joelfernandes.org Cc: juri.lelli@redhat.com Cc: morten.rasmussen@arm.com Cc: patrick.bellasi@arm.com Cc: pkondeti@codeaurora.org Cc: skannan@codeaurora.org Cc: smuckle@google.com Cc: srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com Cc: thara.gopinath@linaro.org Cc: tkjos@google.com Cc: valentin.schneider@arm.com Cc: vincent.guittot@linaro.org Cc: viresh.kumar@linaro.org Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181203095628.11858-4-quentin.perret@arm.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2018-12-03 12:56:16 +03:00
* total energy of the domain (which is the simple sum of the energy of
* all of its CPUs) can be factorized as:
*
* ps->cost * \Sum cpu_util
PM: Introduce an Energy Model management framework Several subsystems in the kernel (task scheduler and/or thermal at the time of writing) can benefit from knowing about the energy consumed by CPUs. Yet, this information can come from different sources (DT or firmware for example), in different formats, hence making it hard to exploit without a standard API. As an attempt to address this, introduce a centralized Energy Model (EM) management framework which aggregates the power values provided by drivers into a table for each performance domain in the system. The power cost tables are made available to interested clients (e.g. task scheduler or thermal) via platform-agnostic APIs. The overall design is represented by the diagram below (focused on Arm-related drivers as an example, but applicable to any architecture): +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | Thermal (IPA) | | Scheduler (EAS) | | Other | +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | | em_pd_energy() | | | em_cpu_get() | +-----------+ | +--------+ | | | v v v +---------------------+ | | | Energy Model | | | | Framework | | | +---------------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | em_register_perf_domain() +----------+ | +---------+ | | | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | cpufreq-dt | | arm_scmi | | Other | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | Device Tree | | Firmware | | ? | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ Drivers (typically, but not limited to, CPUFreq drivers) can register data in the EM framework using the em_register_perf_domain() API. The calling driver must provide a callback function with a standardized signature that will be used by the EM framework to build the power cost tables of the performance domain. This design should offer a lot of flexibility to calling drivers which are free of reading information from any location and to use any technique to compute power costs. Moreover, the capacity states registered by drivers in the EM framework are not required to match real performance states of the target. This is particularly important on targets where the performance states are not known by the OS. The power cost coefficients managed by the EM framework are specified in milli-watts. Although the two potential users of those coefficients (IPA and EAS) only need relative correctness, IPA specifically needs to compare the power of CPUs with the power of other components (GPUs, for example), which are still expressed in absolute terms in their respective subsystems. Hence, specifying the power of CPUs in milli-watts should help transitioning IPA to using the EM framework without introducing new problems by keeping units comparable across sub-systems. On the longer term, the EM of other devices than CPUs could also be managed by the EM framework, which would enable to remove the absolute unit. However, this is not absolutely required as a first step, so this extension of the EM framework is left for later. On the client side, the EM framework offers APIs to access the power cost tables of a CPU (em_cpu_get()), and to estimate the energy consumed by the CPUs of a performance domain (em_pd_energy()). Clients such as the task scheduler can then use these APIs to access the shared data structures holding the Energy Model of CPUs. Signed-off-by: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: adharmap@codeaurora.org Cc: chris.redpath@arm.com Cc: currojerez@riseup.net Cc: dietmar.eggemann@arm.com Cc: edubezval@gmail.com Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Cc: javi.merino@kernel.org Cc: joel@joelfernandes.org Cc: juri.lelli@redhat.com Cc: morten.rasmussen@arm.com Cc: patrick.bellasi@arm.com Cc: pkondeti@codeaurora.org Cc: skannan@codeaurora.org Cc: smuckle@google.com Cc: srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com Cc: thara.gopinath@linaro.org Cc: tkjos@google.com Cc: valentin.schneider@arm.com Cc: vincent.guittot@linaro.org Cc: viresh.kumar@linaro.org Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181203095628.11858-4-quentin.perret@arm.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2018-12-03 12:56:16 +03:00
* pd_nrg = ------------------------ (4)
* scale_cpu
*/
PM: EM: convert power field to micro-Watts precision and align drivers The milli-Watts precision causes rounding errors while calculating efficiency cost for each OPP. This is especially visible in the 'simple' Energy Model (EM), where the power for each OPP is provided from OPP framework. This can cause some OPPs to be marked inefficient, while using micro-Watts precision that might not happen. Update all EM users which access 'power' field and assume the value is in milli-Watts. Solve also an issue with potential overflow in calculation of energy estimation on 32bit machine. It's needed now since the power value (thus the 'cost' as well) are higher. Example calculation which shows the rounding error and impact: power = 'dyn-power-coeff' * volt_mV * volt_mV * freq_MHz power_a_uW = (100 * 600mW * 600mW * 500MHz) / 10^6 = 18000 power_a_mW = (100 * 600mW * 600mW * 500MHz) / 10^9 = 18 power_b_uW = (100 * 605mW * 605mW * 600MHz) / 10^6 = 21961 power_b_mW = (100 * 605mW * 605mW * 600MHz) / 10^9 = 21 max_freq = 2000MHz cost_a_mW = 18 * 2000MHz/500MHz = 72 cost_a_uW = 18000 * 2000MHz/500MHz = 72000 cost_b_mW = 21 * 2000MHz/600MHz = 70 // <- artificially better cost_b_uW = 21961 * 2000MHz/600MHz = 73203 The 'cost_b_mW' (which is based on old milli-Watts) is misleadingly better that the 'cost_b_uW' (this patch uses micro-Watts) and such would have impact on the 'inefficient OPPs' information in the Cpufreq framework. This patch set removes the rounding issue. Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com> Acked-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
2022-07-07 10:15:52 +03:00
return em_estimate_energy(ps->cost, sum_util, scale_cpu);
PM: Introduce an Energy Model management framework Several subsystems in the kernel (task scheduler and/or thermal at the time of writing) can benefit from knowing about the energy consumed by CPUs. Yet, this information can come from different sources (DT or firmware for example), in different formats, hence making it hard to exploit without a standard API. As an attempt to address this, introduce a centralized Energy Model (EM) management framework which aggregates the power values provided by drivers into a table for each performance domain in the system. The power cost tables are made available to interested clients (e.g. task scheduler or thermal) via platform-agnostic APIs. The overall design is represented by the diagram below (focused on Arm-related drivers as an example, but applicable to any architecture): +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | Thermal (IPA) | | Scheduler (EAS) | | Other | +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | | em_pd_energy() | | | em_cpu_get() | +-----------+ | +--------+ | | | v v v +---------------------+ | | | Energy Model | | | | Framework | | | +---------------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | em_register_perf_domain() +----------+ | +---------+ | | | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | cpufreq-dt | | arm_scmi | | Other | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | Device Tree | | Firmware | | ? | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ Drivers (typically, but not limited to, CPUFreq drivers) can register data in the EM framework using the em_register_perf_domain() API. The calling driver must provide a callback function with a standardized signature that will be used by the EM framework to build the power cost tables of the performance domain. This design should offer a lot of flexibility to calling drivers which are free of reading information from any location and to use any technique to compute power costs. Moreover, the capacity states registered by drivers in the EM framework are not required to match real performance states of the target. This is particularly important on targets where the performance states are not known by the OS. The power cost coefficients managed by the EM framework are specified in milli-watts. Although the two potential users of those coefficients (IPA and EAS) only need relative correctness, IPA specifically needs to compare the power of CPUs with the power of other components (GPUs, for example), which are still expressed in absolute terms in their respective subsystems. Hence, specifying the power of CPUs in milli-watts should help transitioning IPA to using the EM framework without introducing new problems by keeping units comparable across sub-systems. On the longer term, the EM of other devices than CPUs could also be managed by the EM framework, which would enable to remove the absolute unit. However, this is not absolutely required as a first step, so this extension of the EM framework is left for later. On the client side, the EM framework offers APIs to access the power cost tables of a CPU (em_cpu_get()), and to estimate the energy consumed by the CPUs of a performance domain (em_pd_energy()). Clients such as the task scheduler can then use these APIs to access the shared data structures holding the Energy Model of CPUs. Signed-off-by: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: adharmap@codeaurora.org Cc: chris.redpath@arm.com Cc: currojerez@riseup.net Cc: dietmar.eggemann@arm.com Cc: edubezval@gmail.com Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Cc: javi.merino@kernel.org Cc: joel@joelfernandes.org Cc: juri.lelli@redhat.com Cc: morten.rasmussen@arm.com Cc: patrick.bellasi@arm.com Cc: pkondeti@codeaurora.org Cc: skannan@codeaurora.org Cc: smuckle@google.com Cc: srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com Cc: thara.gopinath@linaro.org Cc: tkjos@google.com Cc: valentin.schneider@arm.com Cc: vincent.guittot@linaro.org Cc: viresh.kumar@linaro.org Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181203095628.11858-4-quentin.perret@arm.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2018-12-03 12:56:16 +03:00
}
/**
* em_pd_nr_perf_states() - Get the number of performance states of a perf.
* domain
PM: Introduce an Energy Model management framework Several subsystems in the kernel (task scheduler and/or thermal at the time of writing) can benefit from knowing about the energy consumed by CPUs. Yet, this information can come from different sources (DT or firmware for example), in different formats, hence making it hard to exploit without a standard API. As an attempt to address this, introduce a centralized Energy Model (EM) management framework which aggregates the power values provided by drivers into a table for each performance domain in the system. The power cost tables are made available to interested clients (e.g. task scheduler or thermal) via platform-agnostic APIs. The overall design is represented by the diagram below (focused on Arm-related drivers as an example, but applicable to any architecture): +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | Thermal (IPA) | | Scheduler (EAS) | | Other | +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | | em_pd_energy() | | | em_cpu_get() | +-----------+ | +--------+ | | | v v v +---------------------+ | | | Energy Model | | | | Framework | | | +---------------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | em_register_perf_domain() +----------+ | +---------+ | | | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | cpufreq-dt | | arm_scmi | | Other | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | Device Tree | | Firmware | | ? | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ Drivers (typically, but not limited to, CPUFreq drivers) can register data in the EM framework using the em_register_perf_domain() API. The calling driver must provide a callback function with a standardized signature that will be used by the EM framework to build the power cost tables of the performance domain. This design should offer a lot of flexibility to calling drivers which are free of reading information from any location and to use any technique to compute power costs. Moreover, the capacity states registered by drivers in the EM framework are not required to match real performance states of the target. This is particularly important on targets where the performance states are not known by the OS. The power cost coefficients managed by the EM framework are specified in milli-watts. Although the two potential users of those coefficients (IPA and EAS) only need relative correctness, IPA specifically needs to compare the power of CPUs with the power of other components (GPUs, for example), which are still expressed in absolute terms in their respective subsystems. Hence, specifying the power of CPUs in milli-watts should help transitioning IPA to using the EM framework without introducing new problems by keeping units comparable across sub-systems. On the longer term, the EM of other devices than CPUs could also be managed by the EM framework, which would enable to remove the absolute unit. However, this is not absolutely required as a first step, so this extension of the EM framework is left for later. On the client side, the EM framework offers APIs to access the power cost tables of a CPU (em_cpu_get()), and to estimate the energy consumed by the CPUs of a performance domain (em_pd_energy()). Clients such as the task scheduler can then use these APIs to access the shared data structures holding the Energy Model of CPUs. Signed-off-by: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: adharmap@codeaurora.org Cc: chris.redpath@arm.com Cc: currojerez@riseup.net Cc: dietmar.eggemann@arm.com Cc: edubezval@gmail.com Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Cc: javi.merino@kernel.org Cc: joel@joelfernandes.org Cc: juri.lelli@redhat.com Cc: morten.rasmussen@arm.com Cc: patrick.bellasi@arm.com Cc: pkondeti@codeaurora.org Cc: skannan@codeaurora.org Cc: smuckle@google.com Cc: srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com Cc: thara.gopinath@linaro.org Cc: tkjos@google.com Cc: valentin.schneider@arm.com Cc: vincent.guittot@linaro.org Cc: viresh.kumar@linaro.org Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181203095628.11858-4-quentin.perret@arm.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2018-12-03 12:56:16 +03:00
* @pd : performance domain for which this must be done
*
* Return: the number of performance states in the performance domain table
PM: Introduce an Energy Model management framework Several subsystems in the kernel (task scheduler and/or thermal at the time of writing) can benefit from knowing about the energy consumed by CPUs. Yet, this information can come from different sources (DT or firmware for example), in different formats, hence making it hard to exploit without a standard API. As an attempt to address this, introduce a centralized Energy Model (EM) management framework which aggregates the power values provided by drivers into a table for each performance domain in the system. The power cost tables are made available to interested clients (e.g. task scheduler or thermal) via platform-agnostic APIs. The overall design is represented by the diagram below (focused on Arm-related drivers as an example, but applicable to any architecture): +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | Thermal (IPA) | | Scheduler (EAS) | | Other | +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | | em_pd_energy() | | | em_cpu_get() | +-----------+ | +--------+ | | | v v v +---------------------+ | | | Energy Model | | | | Framework | | | +---------------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | em_register_perf_domain() +----------+ | +---------+ | | | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | cpufreq-dt | | arm_scmi | | Other | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | Device Tree | | Firmware | | ? | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ Drivers (typically, but not limited to, CPUFreq drivers) can register data in the EM framework using the em_register_perf_domain() API. The calling driver must provide a callback function with a standardized signature that will be used by the EM framework to build the power cost tables of the performance domain. This design should offer a lot of flexibility to calling drivers which are free of reading information from any location and to use any technique to compute power costs. Moreover, the capacity states registered by drivers in the EM framework are not required to match real performance states of the target. This is particularly important on targets where the performance states are not known by the OS. The power cost coefficients managed by the EM framework are specified in milli-watts. Although the two potential users of those coefficients (IPA and EAS) only need relative correctness, IPA specifically needs to compare the power of CPUs with the power of other components (GPUs, for example), which are still expressed in absolute terms in their respective subsystems. Hence, specifying the power of CPUs in milli-watts should help transitioning IPA to using the EM framework without introducing new problems by keeping units comparable across sub-systems. On the longer term, the EM of other devices than CPUs could also be managed by the EM framework, which would enable to remove the absolute unit. However, this is not absolutely required as a first step, so this extension of the EM framework is left for later. On the client side, the EM framework offers APIs to access the power cost tables of a CPU (em_cpu_get()), and to estimate the energy consumed by the CPUs of a performance domain (em_pd_energy()). Clients such as the task scheduler can then use these APIs to access the shared data structures holding the Energy Model of CPUs. Signed-off-by: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: adharmap@codeaurora.org Cc: chris.redpath@arm.com Cc: currojerez@riseup.net Cc: dietmar.eggemann@arm.com Cc: edubezval@gmail.com Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Cc: javi.merino@kernel.org Cc: joel@joelfernandes.org Cc: juri.lelli@redhat.com Cc: morten.rasmussen@arm.com Cc: patrick.bellasi@arm.com Cc: pkondeti@codeaurora.org Cc: skannan@codeaurora.org Cc: smuckle@google.com Cc: srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com Cc: thara.gopinath@linaro.org Cc: tkjos@google.com Cc: valentin.schneider@arm.com Cc: vincent.guittot@linaro.org Cc: viresh.kumar@linaro.org Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181203095628.11858-4-quentin.perret@arm.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2018-12-03 12:56:16 +03:00
*/
static inline int em_pd_nr_perf_states(struct em_perf_domain *pd)
PM: Introduce an Energy Model management framework Several subsystems in the kernel (task scheduler and/or thermal at the time of writing) can benefit from knowing about the energy consumed by CPUs. Yet, this information can come from different sources (DT or firmware for example), in different formats, hence making it hard to exploit without a standard API. As an attempt to address this, introduce a centralized Energy Model (EM) management framework which aggregates the power values provided by drivers into a table for each performance domain in the system. The power cost tables are made available to interested clients (e.g. task scheduler or thermal) via platform-agnostic APIs. The overall design is represented by the diagram below (focused on Arm-related drivers as an example, but applicable to any architecture): +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | Thermal (IPA) | | Scheduler (EAS) | | Other | +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | | em_pd_energy() | | | em_cpu_get() | +-----------+ | +--------+ | | | v v v +---------------------+ | | | Energy Model | | | | Framework | | | +---------------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | em_register_perf_domain() +----------+ | +---------+ | | | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | cpufreq-dt | | arm_scmi | | Other | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | Device Tree | | Firmware | | ? | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ Drivers (typically, but not limited to, CPUFreq drivers) can register data in the EM framework using the em_register_perf_domain() API. The calling driver must provide a callback function with a standardized signature that will be used by the EM framework to build the power cost tables of the performance domain. This design should offer a lot of flexibility to calling drivers which are free of reading information from any location and to use any technique to compute power costs. Moreover, the capacity states registered by drivers in the EM framework are not required to match real performance states of the target. This is particularly important on targets where the performance states are not known by the OS. The power cost coefficients managed by the EM framework are specified in milli-watts. Although the two potential users of those coefficients (IPA and EAS) only need relative correctness, IPA specifically needs to compare the power of CPUs with the power of other components (GPUs, for example), which are still expressed in absolute terms in their respective subsystems. Hence, specifying the power of CPUs in milli-watts should help transitioning IPA to using the EM framework without introducing new problems by keeping units comparable across sub-systems. On the longer term, the EM of other devices than CPUs could also be managed by the EM framework, which would enable to remove the absolute unit. However, this is not absolutely required as a first step, so this extension of the EM framework is left for later. On the client side, the EM framework offers APIs to access the power cost tables of a CPU (em_cpu_get()), and to estimate the energy consumed by the CPUs of a performance domain (em_pd_energy()). Clients such as the task scheduler can then use these APIs to access the shared data structures holding the Energy Model of CPUs. Signed-off-by: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: adharmap@codeaurora.org Cc: chris.redpath@arm.com Cc: currojerez@riseup.net Cc: dietmar.eggemann@arm.com Cc: edubezval@gmail.com Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Cc: javi.merino@kernel.org Cc: joel@joelfernandes.org Cc: juri.lelli@redhat.com Cc: morten.rasmussen@arm.com Cc: patrick.bellasi@arm.com Cc: pkondeti@codeaurora.org Cc: skannan@codeaurora.org Cc: smuckle@google.com Cc: srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com Cc: thara.gopinath@linaro.org Cc: tkjos@google.com Cc: valentin.schneider@arm.com Cc: vincent.guittot@linaro.org Cc: viresh.kumar@linaro.org Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181203095628.11858-4-quentin.perret@arm.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2018-12-03 12:56:16 +03:00
{
return pd->nr_perf_states;
PM: Introduce an Energy Model management framework Several subsystems in the kernel (task scheduler and/or thermal at the time of writing) can benefit from knowing about the energy consumed by CPUs. Yet, this information can come from different sources (DT or firmware for example), in different formats, hence making it hard to exploit without a standard API. As an attempt to address this, introduce a centralized Energy Model (EM) management framework which aggregates the power values provided by drivers into a table for each performance domain in the system. The power cost tables are made available to interested clients (e.g. task scheduler or thermal) via platform-agnostic APIs. The overall design is represented by the diagram below (focused on Arm-related drivers as an example, but applicable to any architecture): +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | Thermal (IPA) | | Scheduler (EAS) | | Other | +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | | em_pd_energy() | | | em_cpu_get() | +-----------+ | +--------+ | | | v v v +---------------------+ | | | Energy Model | | | | Framework | | | +---------------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | em_register_perf_domain() +----------+ | +---------+ | | | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | cpufreq-dt | | arm_scmi | | Other | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | Device Tree | | Firmware | | ? | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ Drivers (typically, but not limited to, CPUFreq drivers) can register data in the EM framework using the em_register_perf_domain() API. The calling driver must provide a callback function with a standardized signature that will be used by the EM framework to build the power cost tables of the performance domain. This design should offer a lot of flexibility to calling drivers which are free of reading information from any location and to use any technique to compute power costs. Moreover, the capacity states registered by drivers in the EM framework are not required to match real performance states of the target. This is particularly important on targets where the performance states are not known by the OS. The power cost coefficients managed by the EM framework are specified in milli-watts. Although the two potential users of those coefficients (IPA and EAS) only need relative correctness, IPA specifically needs to compare the power of CPUs with the power of other components (GPUs, for example), which are still expressed in absolute terms in their respective subsystems. Hence, specifying the power of CPUs in milli-watts should help transitioning IPA to using the EM framework without introducing new problems by keeping units comparable across sub-systems. On the longer term, the EM of other devices than CPUs could also be managed by the EM framework, which would enable to remove the absolute unit. However, this is not absolutely required as a first step, so this extension of the EM framework is left for later. On the client side, the EM framework offers APIs to access the power cost tables of a CPU (em_cpu_get()), and to estimate the energy consumed by the CPUs of a performance domain (em_pd_energy()). Clients such as the task scheduler can then use these APIs to access the shared data structures holding the Energy Model of CPUs. Signed-off-by: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: adharmap@codeaurora.org Cc: chris.redpath@arm.com Cc: currojerez@riseup.net Cc: dietmar.eggemann@arm.com Cc: edubezval@gmail.com Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Cc: javi.merino@kernel.org Cc: joel@joelfernandes.org Cc: juri.lelli@redhat.com Cc: morten.rasmussen@arm.com Cc: patrick.bellasi@arm.com Cc: pkondeti@codeaurora.org Cc: skannan@codeaurora.org Cc: smuckle@google.com Cc: srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com Cc: thara.gopinath@linaro.org Cc: tkjos@google.com Cc: valentin.schneider@arm.com Cc: vincent.guittot@linaro.org Cc: viresh.kumar@linaro.org Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181203095628.11858-4-quentin.perret@arm.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2018-12-03 12:56:16 +03:00
}
#else
struct em_data_callback {};
PM: EM: Add .get_cost() callback The Energy Model (EM) supports devices which report abstract power scale, not only real Watts. The primary goal for EM is to enable the Energy Aware Scheduler (EAS) for a given platform. Some of the platforms might not be able to deliver proper power values. The only information that they might have is the relative efficiency between CPU types. Thus, it makes sense to remove some restrictions in the EM framework and introduce a mechanism which would support those platforms. What is crucial for EAS to operate is the 'cost' field in the EM. The 'cost' is calculated internally in EM framework based on knowledge from 'power' values. The 'cost' values must be strictly increasing. The existing API with its 'power' value size restrictions cannot guarantee that the 'cost' will meet this requirement. Since the platform is missing this detailed information, but has only efficiency details, introduce a new custom callback in the EM framework. The new callback would allow to provide the 'cost' values which reflect efficiency of the CPUs. This would allow to provide EAS information which has different relation than what would be forced by the EM internal formulas calculating 'cost' values. Thanks to this new callback it is possible to create a system view for EAS which has no overlapping performance states across many Performance Domains. Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com> Reviewed-by: Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
2022-03-21 12:57:22 +03:00
#define EM_ADV_DATA_CB(_active_power_cb, _cost_cb) { }
PM: Introduce an Energy Model management framework Several subsystems in the kernel (task scheduler and/or thermal at the time of writing) can benefit from knowing about the energy consumed by CPUs. Yet, this information can come from different sources (DT or firmware for example), in different formats, hence making it hard to exploit without a standard API. As an attempt to address this, introduce a centralized Energy Model (EM) management framework which aggregates the power values provided by drivers into a table for each performance domain in the system. The power cost tables are made available to interested clients (e.g. task scheduler or thermal) via platform-agnostic APIs. The overall design is represented by the diagram below (focused on Arm-related drivers as an example, but applicable to any architecture): +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | Thermal (IPA) | | Scheduler (EAS) | | Other | +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | | em_pd_energy() | | | em_cpu_get() | +-----------+ | +--------+ | | | v v v +---------------------+ | | | Energy Model | | | | Framework | | | +---------------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | em_register_perf_domain() +----------+ | +---------+ | | | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | cpufreq-dt | | arm_scmi | | Other | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | Device Tree | | Firmware | | ? | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ Drivers (typically, but not limited to, CPUFreq drivers) can register data in the EM framework using the em_register_perf_domain() API. The calling driver must provide a callback function with a standardized signature that will be used by the EM framework to build the power cost tables of the performance domain. This design should offer a lot of flexibility to calling drivers which are free of reading information from any location and to use any technique to compute power costs. Moreover, the capacity states registered by drivers in the EM framework are not required to match real performance states of the target. This is particularly important on targets where the performance states are not known by the OS. The power cost coefficients managed by the EM framework are specified in milli-watts. Although the two potential users of those coefficients (IPA and EAS) only need relative correctness, IPA specifically needs to compare the power of CPUs with the power of other components (GPUs, for example), which are still expressed in absolute terms in their respective subsystems. Hence, specifying the power of CPUs in milli-watts should help transitioning IPA to using the EM framework without introducing new problems by keeping units comparable across sub-systems. On the longer term, the EM of other devices than CPUs could also be managed by the EM framework, which would enable to remove the absolute unit. However, this is not absolutely required as a first step, so this extension of the EM framework is left for later. On the client side, the EM framework offers APIs to access the power cost tables of a CPU (em_cpu_get()), and to estimate the energy consumed by the CPUs of a performance domain (em_pd_energy()). Clients such as the task scheduler can then use these APIs to access the shared data structures holding the Energy Model of CPUs. Signed-off-by: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: adharmap@codeaurora.org Cc: chris.redpath@arm.com Cc: currojerez@riseup.net Cc: dietmar.eggemann@arm.com Cc: edubezval@gmail.com Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Cc: javi.merino@kernel.org Cc: joel@joelfernandes.org Cc: juri.lelli@redhat.com Cc: morten.rasmussen@arm.com Cc: patrick.bellasi@arm.com Cc: pkondeti@codeaurora.org Cc: skannan@codeaurora.org Cc: smuckle@google.com Cc: srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com Cc: thara.gopinath@linaro.org Cc: tkjos@google.com Cc: valentin.schneider@arm.com Cc: vincent.guittot@linaro.org Cc: viresh.kumar@linaro.org Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181203095628.11858-4-quentin.perret@arm.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2018-12-03 12:56:16 +03:00
#define EM_DATA_CB(_active_power_cb) { }
#define EM_SET_ACTIVE_POWER_CB(em_cb, cb) do { } while (0)
PM: Introduce an Energy Model management framework Several subsystems in the kernel (task scheduler and/or thermal at the time of writing) can benefit from knowing about the energy consumed by CPUs. Yet, this information can come from different sources (DT or firmware for example), in different formats, hence making it hard to exploit without a standard API. As an attempt to address this, introduce a centralized Energy Model (EM) management framework which aggregates the power values provided by drivers into a table for each performance domain in the system. The power cost tables are made available to interested clients (e.g. task scheduler or thermal) via platform-agnostic APIs. The overall design is represented by the diagram below (focused on Arm-related drivers as an example, but applicable to any architecture): +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | Thermal (IPA) | | Scheduler (EAS) | | Other | +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | | em_pd_energy() | | | em_cpu_get() | +-----------+ | +--------+ | | | v v v +---------------------+ | | | Energy Model | | | | Framework | | | +---------------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | em_register_perf_domain() +----------+ | +---------+ | | | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | cpufreq-dt | | arm_scmi | | Other | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | Device Tree | | Firmware | | ? | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ Drivers (typically, but not limited to, CPUFreq drivers) can register data in the EM framework using the em_register_perf_domain() API. The calling driver must provide a callback function with a standardized signature that will be used by the EM framework to build the power cost tables of the performance domain. This design should offer a lot of flexibility to calling drivers which are free of reading information from any location and to use any technique to compute power costs. Moreover, the capacity states registered by drivers in the EM framework are not required to match real performance states of the target. This is particularly important on targets where the performance states are not known by the OS. The power cost coefficients managed by the EM framework are specified in milli-watts. Although the two potential users of those coefficients (IPA and EAS) only need relative correctness, IPA specifically needs to compare the power of CPUs with the power of other components (GPUs, for example), which are still expressed in absolute terms in their respective subsystems. Hence, specifying the power of CPUs in milli-watts should help transitioning IPA to using the EM framework without introducing new problems by keeping units comparable across sub-systems. On the longer term, the EM of other devices than CPUs could also be managed by the EM framework, which would enable to remove the absolute unit. However, this is not absolutely required as a first step, so this extension of the EM framework is left for later. On the client side, the EM framework offers APIs to access the power cost tables of a CPU (em_cpu_get()), and to estimate the energy consumed by the CPUs of a performance domain (em_pd_energy()). Clients such as the task scheduler can then use these APIs to access the shared data structures holding the Energy Model of CPUs. Signed-off-by: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: adharmap@codeaurora.org Cc: chris.redpath@arm.com Cc: currojerez@riseup.net Cc: dietmar.eggemann@arm.com Cc: edubezval@gmail.com Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Cc: javi.merino@kernel.org Cc: joel@joelfernandes.org Cc: juri.lelli@redhat.com Cc: morten.rasmussen@arm.com Cc: patrick.bellasi@arm.com Cc: pkondeti@codeaurora.org Cc: skannan@codeaurora.org Cc: smuckle@google.com Cc: srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com Cc: thara.gopinath@linaro.org Cc: tkjos@google.com Cc: valentin.schneider@arm.com Cc: vincent.guittot@linaro.org Cc: viresh.kumar@linaro.org Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181203095628.11858-4-quentin.perret@arm.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2018-12-03 12:56:16 +03:00
static inline
int em_dev_register_perf_domain(struct device *dev, unsigned int nr_states,
struct em_data_callback *cb, cpumask_t *span,
PM: EM: convert power field to micro-Watts precision and align drivers The milli-Watts precision causes rounding errors while calculating efficiency cost for each OPP. This is especially visible in the 'simple' Energy Model (EM), where the power for each OPP is provided from OPP framework. This can cause some OPPs to be marked inefficient, while using micro-Watts precision that might not happen. Update all EM users which access 'power' field and assume the value is in milli-Watts. Solve also an issue with potential overflow in calculation of energy estimation on 32bit machine. It's needed now since the power value (thus the 'cost' as well) are higher. Example calculation which shows the rounding error and impact: power = 'dyn-power-coeff' * volt_mV * volt_mV * freq_MHz power_a_uW = (100 * 600mW * 600mW * 500MHz) / 10^6 = 18000 power_a_mW = (100 * 600mW * 600mW * 500MHz) / 10^9 = 18 power_b_uW = (100 * 605mW * 605mW * 600MHz) / 10^6 = 21961 power_b_mW = (100 * 605mW * 605mW * 600MHz) / 10^9 = 21 max_freq = 2000MHz cost_a_mW = 18 * 2000MHz/500MHz = 72 cost_a_uW = 18000 * 2000MHz/500MHz = 72000 cost_b_mW = 21 * 2000MHz/600MHz = 70 // <- artificially better cost_b_uW = 21961 * 2000MHz/600MHz = 73203 The 'cost_b_mW' (which is based on old milli-Watts) is misleadingly better that the 'cost_b_uW' (this patch uses micro-Watts) and such would have impact on the 'inefficient OPPs' information in the Cpufreq framework. This patch set removes the rounding issue. Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com> Acked-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
2022-07-07 10:15:52 +03:00
bool microwatts)
{
return -EINVAL;
}
static inline void em_dev_unregister_perf_domain(struct device *dev)
{
}
PM: Introduce an Energy Model management framework Several subsystems in the kernel (task scheduler and/or thermal at the time of writing) can benefit from knowing about the energy consumed by CPUs. Yet, this information can come from different sources (DT or firmware for example), in different formats, hence making it hard to exploit without a standard API. As an attempt to address this, introduce a centralized Energy Model (EM) management framework which aggregates the power values provided by drivers into a table for each performance domain in the system. The power cost tables are made available to interested clients (e.g. task scheduler or thermal) via platform-agnostic APIs. The overall design is represented by the diagram below (focused on Arm-related drivers as an example, but applicable to any architecture): +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | Thermal (IPA) | | Scheduler (EAS) | | Other | +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | | em_pd_energy() | | | em_cpu_get() | +-----------+ | +--------+ | | | v v v +---------------------+ | | | Energy Model | | | | Framework | | | +---------------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | em_register_perf_domain() +----------+ | +---------+ | | | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | cpufreq-dt | | arm_scmi | | Other | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | Device Tree | | Firmware | | ? | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ Drivers (typically, but not limited to, CPUFreq drivers) can register data in the EM framework using the em_register_perf_domain() API. The calling driver must provide a callback function with a standardized signature that will be used by the EM framework to build the power cost tables of the performance domain. This design should offer a lot of flexibility to calling drivers which are free of reading information from any location and to use any technique to compute power costs. Moreover, the capacity states registered by drivers in the EM framework are not required to match real performance states of the target. This is particularly important on targets where the performance states are not known by the OS. The power cost coefficients managed by the EM framework are specified in milli-watts. Although the two potential users of those coefficients (IPA and EAS) only need relative correctness, IPA specifically needs to compare the power of CPUs with the power of other components (GPUs, for example), which are still expressed in absolute terms in their respective subsystems. Hence, specifying the power of CPUs in milli-watts should help transitioning IPA to using the EM framework without introducing new problems by keeping units comparable across sub-systems. On the longer term, the EM of other devices than CPUs could also be managed by the EM framework, which would enable to remove the absolute unit. However, this is not absolutely required as a first step, so this extension of the EM framework is left for later. On the client side, the EM framework offers APIs to access the power cost tables of a CPU (em_cpu_get()), and to estimate the energy consumed by the CPUs of a performance domain (em_pd_energy()). Clients such as the task scheduler can then use these APIs to access the shared data structures holding the Energy Model of CPUs. Signed-off-by: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: adharmap@codeaurora.org Cc: chris.redpath@arm.com Cc: currojerez@riseup.net Cc: dietmar.eggemann@arm.com Cc: edubezval@gmail.com Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Cc: javi.merino@kernel.org Cc: joel@joelfernandes.org Cc: juri.lelli@redhat.com Cc: morten.rasmussen@arm.com Cc: patrick.bellasi@arm.com Cc: pkondeti@codeaurora.org Cc: skannan@codeaurora.org Cc: smuckle@google.com Cc: srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com Cc: thara.gopinath@linaro.org Cc: tkjos@google.com Cc: valentin.schneider@arm.com Cc: vincent.guittot@linaro.org Cc: viresh.kumar@linaro.org Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181203095628.11858-4-quentin.perret@arm.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2018-12-03 12:56:16 +03:00
static inline struct em_perf_domain *em_cpu_get(int cpu)
{
return NULL;
}
static inline struct em_perf_domain *em_pd_get(struct device *dev)
{
return NULL;
}
static inline unsigned long em_cpu_energy(struct em_perf_domain *pd,
sched/cpufreq: Consider reduced CPU capacity in energy calculation Energy Aware Scheduling (EAS) needs to predict the decisions made by SchedUtil. The map_util_freq() exists to do that. There are corner cases where the max allowed frequency might be reduced (due to thermal). SchedUtil as a CPUFreq governor, is aware of that but EAS is not. This patch aims to address it. SchedUtil stores the maximum allowed frequency in 'sugov_policy::next_freq' field. EAS has to predict that value, which is the real used frequency. That value is made after a call to cpufreq_driver_resolve_freq() which clamps to the CPUFreq policy limits. In the existing code EAS is not able to predict that real frequency. This leads to energy estimation errors. To avoid wrong energy estimation in EAS (due to frequency miss prediction) make sure that the step which calculates Performance Domain frequency, is also aware of the allowed CPU capacity. Furthermore, modify map_util_freq() to not extend the frequency value. Instead, use map_util_perf() to extend the util value in both places: SchedUtil and EAS, but for EAS clamp it to max allowed CPU capacity. In the end, we achieve the same desirable behavior for both subsystems and alignment in regards to the real CPU frequency. Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Acked-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> (For the schedutil part) Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210614191238.23224-1-lukasz.luba@arm.com
2021-06-14 22:12:38 +03:00
unsigned long max_util, unsigned long sum_util,
unsigned long allowed_cpu_cap)
PM: Introduce an Energy Model management framework Several subsystems in the kernel (task scheduler and/or thermal at the time of writing) can benefit from knowing about the energy consumed by CPUs. Yet, this information can come from different sources (DT or firmware for example), in different formats, hence making it hard to exploit without a standard API. As an attempt to address this, introduce a centralized Energy Model (EM) management framework which aggregates the power values provided by drivers into a table for each performance domain in the system. The power cost tables are made available to interested clients (e.g. task scheduler or thermal) via platform-agnostic APIs. The overall design is represented by the diagram below (focused on Arm-related drivers as an example, but applicable to any architecture): +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | Thermal (IPA) | | Scheduler (EAS) | | Other | +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | | em_pd_energy() | | | em_cpu_get() | +-----------+ | +--------+ | | | v v v +---------------------+ | | | Energy Model | | | | Framework | | | +---------------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | em_register_perf_domain() +----------+ | +---------+ | | | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | cpufreq-dt | | arm_scmi | | Other | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | Device Tree | | Firmware | | ? | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ Drivers (typically, but not limited to, CPUFreq drivers) can register data in the EM framework using the em_register_perf_domain() API. The calling driver must provide a callback function with a standardized signature that will be used by the EM framework to build the power cost tables of the performance domain. This design should offer a lot of flexibility to calling drivers which are free of reading information from any location and to use any technique to compute power costs. Moreover, the capacity states registered by drivers in the EM framework are not required to match real performance states of the target. This is particularly important on targets where the performance states are not known by the OS. The power cost coefficients managed by the EM framework are specified in milli-watts. Although the two potential users of those coefficients (IPA and EAS) only need relative correctness, IPA specifically needs to compare the power of CPUs with the power of other components (GPUs, for example), which are still expressed in absolute terms in their respective subsystems. Hence, specifying the power of CPUs in milli-watts should help transitioning IPA to using the EM framework without introducing new problems by keeping units comparable across sub-systems. On the longer term, the EM of other devices than CPUs could also be managed by the EM framework, which would enable to remove the absolute unit. However, this is not absolutely required as a first step, so this extension of the EM framework is left for later. On the client side, the EM framework offers APIs to access the power cost tables of a CPU (em_cpu_get()), and to estimate the energy consumed by the CPUs of a performance domain (em_pd_energy()). Clients such as the task scheduler can then use these APIs to access the shared data structures holding the Energy Model of CPUs. Signed-off-by: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: adharmap@codeaurora.org Cc: chris.redpath@arm.com Cc: currojerez@riseup.net Cc: dietmar.eggemann@arm.com Cc: edubezval@gmail.com Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Cc: javi.merino@kernel.org Cc: joel@joelfernandes.org Cc: juri.lelli@redhat.com Cc: morten.rasmussen@arm.com Cc: patrick.bellasi@arm.com Cc: pkondeti@codeaurora.org Cc: skannan@codeaurora.org Cc: smuckle@google.com Cc: srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com Cc: thara.gopinath@linaro.org Cc: tkjos@google.com Cc: valentin.schneider@arm.com Cc: vincent.guittot@linaro.org Cc: viresh.kumar@linaro.org Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181203095628.11858-4-quentin.perret@arm.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2018-12-03 12:56:16 +03:00
{
return 0;
}
static inline int em_pd_nr_perf_states(struct em_perf_domain *pd)
PM: Introduce an Energy Model management framework Several subsystems in the kernel (task scheduler and/or thermal at the time of writing) can benefit from knowing about the energy consumed by CPUs. Yet, this information can come from different sources (DT or firmware for example), in different formats, hence making it hard to exploit without a standard API. As an attempt to address this, introduce a centralized Energy Model (EM) management framework which aggregates the power values provided by drivers into a table for each performance domain in the system. The power cost tables are made available to interested clients (e.g. task scheduler or thermal) via platform-agnostic APIs. The overall design is represented by the diagram below (focused on Arm-related drivers as an example, but applicable to any architecture): +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | Thermal (IPA) | | Scheduler (EAS) | | Other | +---------------+ +-----------------+ +-------------+ | | em_pd_energy() | | | em_cpu_get() | +-----------+ | +--------+ | | | v v v +---------------------+ | | | Energy Model | | | | Framework | | | +---------------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | em_register_perf_domain() +----------+ | +---------+ | | | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | cpufreq-dt | | arm_scmi | | Other | +---------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ ^ ^ ^ | | | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ | Device Tree | | Firmware | | ? | +--------------+ +---------------+ +--------------+ Drivers (typically, but not limited to, CPUFreq drivers) can register data in the EM framework using the em_register_perf_domain() API. The calling driver must provide a callback function with a standardized signature that will be used by the EM framework to build the power cost tables of the performance domain. This design should offer a lot of flexibility to calling drivers which are free of reading information from any location and to use any technique to compute power costs. Moreover, the capacity states registered by drivers in the EM framework are not required to match real performance states of the target. This is particularly important on targets where the performance states are not known by the OS. The power cost coefficients managed by the EM framework are specified in milli-watts. Although the two potential users of those coefficients (IPA and EAS) only need relative correctness, IPA specifically needs to compare the power of CPUs with the power of other components (GPUs, for example), which are still expressed in absolute terms in their respective subsystems. Hence, specifying the power of CPUs in milli-watts should help transitioning IPA to using the EM framework without introducing new problems by keeping units comparable across sub-systems. On the longer term, the EM of other devices than CPUs could also be managed by the EM framework, which would enable to remove the absolute unit. However, this is not absolutely required as a first step, so this extension of the EM framework is left for later. On the client side, the EM framework offers APIs to access the power cost tables of a CPU (em_cpu_get()), and to estimate the energy consumed by the CPUs of a performance domain (em_pd_energy()). Clients such as the task scheduler can then use these APIs to access the shared data structures holding the Energy Model of CPUs. Signed-off-by: Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: adharmap@codeaurora.org Cc: chris.redpath@arm.com Cc: currojerez@riseup.net Cc: dietmar.eggemann@arm.com Cc: edubezval@gmail.com Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Cc: javi.merino@kernel.org Cc: joel@joelfernandes.org Cc: juri.lelli@redhat.com Cc: morten.rasmussen@arm.com Cc: patrick.bellasi@arm.com Cc: pkondeti@codeaurora.org Cc: skannan@codeaurora.org Cc: smuckle@google.com Cc: srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com Cc: thara.gopinath@linaro.org Cc: tkjos@google.com Cc: valentin.schneider@arm.com Cc: vincent.guittot@linaro.org Cc: viresh.kumar@linaro.org Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181203095628.11858-4-quentin.perret@arm.com Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
2018-12-03 12:56:16 +03:00
{
return 0;
}
#endif
#endif