| Message ID | 1466154816-17900-2-git-send-email-zhaoyang.huang@spreadtrum.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Rejected, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Fri, 17 Jun 2016, Zhaoyang Huang wrote: > There should be a gap between tick_nohz_idle_enter and > tick_nohz_get_sleep_length when idle, which will cause the > sleep_length is not very precised. Change it in this patch. What kind of imprecision are we talking about? Seconds, nanoseconds or lightyears? Your changelog lacks any form of useful information. Thanks, tglx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pm" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 17 June 2016 at 17:27, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote: > On Fri, 17 Jun 2016, Zhaoyang Huang wrote: >> There should be a gap between tick_nohz_idle_enter and >> tick_nohz_get_sleep_length when idle, which will cause the >> sleep_length is not very precised. Change it in this patch. > > What kind of imprecision are we talking about? Seconds, nanoseconds or > lightyears? > > Your changelog lacks any form of useful information. > > Thanks, > > tglx > > sorry for the confusion. The imprecision can be caused by, for example, the callback function registered for CPU_PM_ENTER, which may consume a period of time within the 'idle' time. Besides, I also wonder why not calc the 'sleep_length' in the tick_nohz_get_sleep_length? This value is calculated at very beginning of the idle in current approach. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pm" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Fri, 17 Jun 2016, Zhaoyang Huang wrote: > On 17 June 2016 at 17:27, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote: > > On Fri, 17 Jun 2016, Zhaoyang Huang wrote: > >> There should be a gap between tick_nohz_idle_enter and > >> tick_nohz_get_sleep_length when idle, which will cause the > >> sleep_length is not very precised. Change it in this patch. > > > > What kind of imprecision are we talking about? Seconds, nanoseconds or > > lightyears? > > > > Your changelog lacks any form of useful information. > > > sorry for the confusion. The imprecision can be caused by, for > example, the callback function registered for CPU_PM_ENTER, which may > consume a period of time within the 'idle' time. Besides, I also > wonder why not calc the 'sleep_length' in the > tick_nohz_get_sleep_length? This value is calculated at very > beginning of the idle in current approach. You still are not explaining the amount of imprecision. What are you talking about and is it really relevant in any way or are you just trying to solve an acedemic issue? Thanks, tglx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pm" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 17 June 2016 at 19:50, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote: > On Fri, 17 Jun 2016, Zhaoyang Huang wrote: >> On 17 June 2016 at 17:27, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote: >> > On Fri, 17 Jun 2016, Zhaoyang Huang wrote: >> >> There should be a gap between tick_nohz_idle_enter and >> >> tick_nohz_get_sleep_length when idle, which will cause the >> >> sleep_length is not very precised. Change it in this patch. >> > >> > What kind of imprecision are we talking about? Seconds, nanoseconds or >> > lightyears? >> > >> > Your changelog lacks any form of useful information. >> > >> sorry for the confusion. The imprecision can be caused by, for >> example, the callback function registered for CPU_PM_ENTER, which may >> consume a period of time within the 'idle' time. Besides, I also >> wonder why not calc the 'sleep_length' in the >> tick_nohz_get_sleep_length? This value is calculated at very >> beginning of the idle in current approach. > > You still are not explaining the amount of imprecision. What are you talking > about and is it really relevant in any way or are you just trying to solve an > acedemic issue? > > Thanks, > > tglx > Indeed, it is depends on how deep the idle state is. For example, the lightest level for my current platform is 1100us, which sums up the entry,exit and min time. However, there is a callback which do memory management(merge the same page) in CPU_PM_ENTER will consume at least 500us. In current approach, it cause 50% imprecision for this level of idle state. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pm" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 20 June 2016 at 09:14, Zhaoyang Huang <zhaoyang.huang@linaro.org> wrote: > On 17 June 2016 at 19:50, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote: >> On Fri, 17 Jun 2016, Zhaoyang Huang wrote: >>> On 17 June 2016 at 17:27, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote: >>> > On Fri, 17 Jun 2016, Zhaoyang Huang wrote: >>> >> There should be a gap between tick_nohz_idle_enter and >>> >> tick_nohz_get_sleep_length when idle, which will cause the >>> >> sleep_length is not very precised. Change it in this patch. >>> > >>> > What kind of imprecision are we talking about? Seconds, nanoseconds or >>> > lightyears? >>> > >>> > Your changelog lacks any form of useful information. >>> > >>> sorry for the confusion. The imprecision can be caused by, for >>> example, the callback function registered for CPU_PM_ENTER, which may >>> consume a period of time within the 'idle' time. Besides, I also >>> wonder why not calc the 'sleep_length' in the >>> tick_nohz_get_sleep_length? This value is calculated at very >>> beginning of the idle in current approach. >> >> You still are not explaining the amount of imprecision. What are you talking >> about and is it really relevant in any way or are you just trying to solve an >> acedemic issue? >> >> Thanks, >> >> tglx >> > Indeed, it is depends on how deep the idle state is. For example, the > lightest level for my current platform is 1100us, which sums up the > entry,exit and min time. However, there is a callback which do memory > management(merge the same page) in CPU_PM_ENTER will consume at least > 500us. In current approach, it cause 50% imprecision for this level of > idle state. Hi Thomas, Any further comments on that? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pm" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Wed, 22 Jun 2016, Zhaoyang Huang wrote: > On 20 June 2016 at 09:14, Zhaoyang Huang <zhaoyang.huang@linaro.org> wrote: > > On 17 June 2016 at 19:50, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote: > >> On Fri, 17 Jun 2016, Zhaoyang Huang wrote: > >>> On 17 June 2016 at 17:27, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote: > >>> > On Fri, 17 Jun 2016, Zhaoyang Huang wrote: > >>> >> There should be a gap between tick_nohz_idle_enter and > >>> >> tick_nohz_get_sleep_length when idle, which will cause the > >>> >> sleep_length is not very precised. Change it in this patch. > >>> > > >>> > What kind of imprecision are we talking about? Seconds, nanoseconds or > >>> > lightyears? > >>> > > >>> > Your changelog lacks any form of useful information. > >>> > > >>> sorry for the confusion. The imprecision can be caused by, for > >>> example, the callback function registered for CPU_PM_ENTER, which may > >>> consume a period of time within the 'idle' time. Besides, I also > >>> wonder why not calc the 'sleep_length' in the > >>> tick_nohz_get_sleep_length? This value is calculated at very > >>> beginning of the idle in current approach. > >> > >> You still are not explaining the amount of imprecision. What are you talking > >> about and is it really relevant in any way or are you just trying to solve an > >> acedemic issue? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> tglx > >> > > Indeed, it is depends on how deep the idle state is. For example, the > > lightest level for my current platform is 1100us, which sums up the > > entry,exit and min time. However, there is a callback which do memory > > management(merge the same page) in CPU_PM_ENTER will consume at least > > 500us. In current approach, it cause 50% imprecision for this level of > > idle state. > Hi Thomas, > Any further comments on that? Yes. Why on earth do we have a 500us callback in the idle entry path? That's just insane and needs to be fixed. Thanks, tglx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pm" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 23 June 2016 at 15:01, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote: > On Wed, 22 Jun 2016, Zhaoyang Huang wrote: >> On 20 June 2016 at 09:14, Zhaoyang Huang <zhaoyang.huang@linaro.org> wrote: >> > On 17 June 2016 at 19:50, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote: >> >> On Fri, 17 Jun 2016, Zhaoyang Huang wrote: >> >>> On 17 June 2016 at 17:27, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote: >> >>> > On Fri, 17 Jun 2016, Zhaoyang Huang wrote: >> >>> >> There should be a gap between tick_nohz_idle_enter and >> >>> >> tick_nohz_get_sleep_length when idle, which will cause the >> >>> >> sleep_length is not very precised. Change it in this patch. >> >>> > >> >>> > What kind of imprecision are we talking about? Seconds, nanoseconds or >> >>> > lightyears? >> >>> > >> >>> > Your changelog lacks any form of useful information. >> >>> > >> >>> sorry for the confusion. The imprecision can be caused by, for >> >>> example, the callback function registered for CPU_PM_ENTER, which may >> >>> consume a period of time within the 'idle' time. Besides, I also >> >>> wonder why not calc the 'sleep_length' in the >> >>> tick_nohz_get_sleep_length? This value is calculated at very >> >>> beginning of the idle in current approach. >> >> >> >> You still are not explaining the amount of imprecision. What are you talking >> >> about and is it really relevant in any way or are you just trying to solve an >> >> acedemic issue? >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> >> tglx >> >> >> > Indeed, it is depends on how deep the idle state is. For example, the >> > lightest level for my current platform is 1100us, which sums up the >> > entry,exit and min time. However, there is a callback which do memory >> > management(merge the same page) in CPU_PM_ENTER will consume at least >> > 500us. In current approach, it cause 50% imprecision for this level of >> > idle state. >> Hi Thomas, >> Any further comments on that? > > Yes. Why on earth do we have a 500us callback in the idle entry path? That's > just insane and needs to be fixed. > > Thanks, > > tglx Thomas, I agree with you, I have discussed the modification with the call back owner. However, I wonder if we can make the idle's framework to be more precised without the assumption of short CPU_PM_ENTER callbacks. Thank you! -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pm" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Thu, 23 Jun 2016, Zhaoyang Huang wrote: > On 23 June 2016 at 15:01, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote: > Thomas, I agree with you, I have discussed the modification with the > call back owner. However, I wonder if we can make the idle's framework > to be more precised without the assumption of short CPU_PM_ENTER > callbacks. Thank you! What's the point? To help people who put insanities into the idle code path? Thanks, tglx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pm" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 23 June 2016 at 16:18, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote: > On Thu, 23 Jun 2016, Zhaoyang Huang wrote: >> On 23 June 2016 at 15:01, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote: >> Thomas, I agree with you, I have discussed the modification with the >> call back owner. However, I wonder if we can make the idle's framework >> to be more precised without the assumption of short CPU_PM_ENTER >> callbacks. Thank you! > > What's the point? To help people who put insanities into the idle code path? > > Thanks, > > tglx > Hi, Thomas. If the entry,exit,min time of one idle state sums up to 500us in some platform, the 100us callback which should be common as caused by cache miss would also generate 20% imprecision. Don't you think it is a case we should deal with? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pm" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Thu, 23 Jun 2016, Zhaoyang Huang wrote: > On 23 June 2016 at 16:18, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote: > > On Thu, 23 Jun 2016, Zhaoyang Huang wrote: > >> On 23 June 2016 at 15:01, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote: > >> Thomas, I agree with you, I have discussed the modification with the > >> call back owner. However, I wonder if we can make the idle's framework > >> to be more precised without the assumption of short CPU_PM_ENTER > >> callbacks. Thank you! > > > > What's the point? To help people who put insanities into the idle code path? > > > > Thanks, > > > > tglx > > > Hi, Thomas. If the entry,exit,min time of one idle state sums up to > 500us in some platform, the 100us callback which should be common as > caused by cache miss would also generate 20% imprecision. Don't you A cache miss is causing a 100us callback? What are you talking about? Thanks, tglx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pm" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 23 June 2016 at 16:35, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote: > On Thu, 23 Jun 2016, Zhaoyang Huang wrote: >> On 23 June 2016 at 16:18, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote: >> > On Thu, 23 Jun 2016, Zhaoyang Huang wrote: >> >> On 23 June 2016 at 15:01, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote: >> >> Thomas, I agree with you, I have discussed the modification with the >> >> call back owner. However, I wonder if we can make the idle's framework >> >> to be more precised without the assumption of short CPU_PM_ENTER >> >> callbacks. Thank you! >> > >> > What's the point? To help people who put insanities into the idle code path? >> > >> > Thanks, >> > >> > tglx >> > >> Hi, Thomas. If the entry,exit,min time of one idle state sums up to >> 500us in some platform, the 100us callback which should be common as >> caused by cache miss would also generate 20% imprecision. Don't you > > A cache miss is causing a 100us callback? What are you talking about? > > Thanks, > > tglx By a serials of memory access which maybe missed on cache all. Anyway, we can require the callback not to introduce schedule etc, but can not ask them to ensure their own executing time, which they can not control. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pm" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Thu, 23 Jun 2016, Zhaoyang Huang wrote: > On 23 June 2016 at 16:35, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote: > >> Hi, Thomas. If the entry,exit,min time of one idle state sums up to > >> 500us in some platform, the 100us callback which should be common as > >> caused by cache miss would also generate 20% imprecision. Don't you > > > > A cache miss is causing a 100us callback? What are you talking about? > > > By a serials of memory access which maybe missed on cache all. Anyway, > we can require the callback not to introduce schedule etc, but can not > ask them to ensure their own executing time, which they can not > control. I really do not understand what you are trying to solve. If the enter to idle code is delayed by cache misses for 100us then you have other serious problems than the accuracy of that time stamp. Thanks, tglx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pm" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/kernel/time/tick-sched.c b/kernel/time/tick-sched.c index 536ada8..ee3be3d 100644 --- a/kernel/time/tick-sched.c +++ b/kernel/time/tick-sched.c @@ -975,6 +975,11 @@ void tick_nohz_irq_exit(void) ktime_t tick_nohz_get_sleep_length(void) { struct tick_sched *ts = this_cpu_ptr(&tick_cpu_sched); + struct clock_event_device *dev = __this_cpu_read(tick_cpu_device.evtdev); + ktime_t now; + + now = ktime_get(); + ts->sleep_length = ktime_sub(dev->next_event, now); return ts->sleep_length; }
There should be a gap between tick_nohz_idle_enter and tick_nohz_get_sleep_length when idle, which will cause the sleep_length is not very precised. Change it in this patch. Signed-off-by: Zhaoyang Huang <zhaoyang.huang@spreadtrum.com> --- kernel/time/tick-sched.c | 5 +++++ 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)