Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] cpufreq: ondemand: Change the calculation of target frequency

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Saturday, June 08, 2013 03:34:29 PM Stratos Karafotis wrote:
> I also did the test with the way you mentioned. But I thought to run turbostat for 100 sec as I did with powertop.

Ah, OK.

> Actually benchmark lasts about 96 secs.
> 
> I think that we use almost the same energy for 100 sec to run the same load a little bit faster. I think this means also a reduce to power consumption.
> 
> I will also send the results running the test as you said.

Cool, thanks!

Rafael


> "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> >On Saturday, June 08, 2013 12:56:00 PM Stratos Karafotis wrote:
> >> On 06/07/2013 11:57 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> > On Friday, June 07, 2013 10:14:34 PM Stratos Karafotis wrote:
> >> >> On 06/05/2013 11:35 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> >>> On Wednesday, June 05, 2013 08:13:26 PM Stratos Karafotis wrote:
> >> >>>> Hi Borislav,
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> On 06/05/2013 07:17 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> >> >>>>> On Wed, Jun 05, 2013 at 07:01:25PM +0300, Stratos Karafotis wrote:
> >> >>>>>> Ondemand calculates load in terms of frequency and increases it only
> >> >>>>>> if the load_freq is greater than up_threshold multiplied by current
> >> >>>>>> or average frequency. This seems to produce oscillations of frequency
> >> >>>>>> between min and max because, for example, a relatively small load can
> >> >>>>>> easily saturate minimum frequency and lead the CPU to max. Then, the
> >> >>>>>> CPU will decrease back to min due to a small load_freq.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Right, and I think this is how we want it, no?
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> The thing is, the faster you finish your work, the faster you can become
> >> >>>>> idle and save power.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> This is exactly the goal of this patch. To use more efficiently middle
> >> >>>> frequencies to finish faster the work.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>> If you switch frequencies in a staircase-like manner, you're going to
> >> >>>>> take longer to finish, in certain cases, and burn more power while doing
> >> >>>>> so.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> This is not true with this patch. It switches to middle frequencies
> >> >>>> when the load < up_threshold.
> >> >>>> Now, ondemand does not increase freq. CPU runs in lowest freq till the
> >> >>>> load is greater than up_threshold.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>> Btw, racing to idle is also a good example for why you want boosting:
> >> >>>>> you want to go max out the core but stay within power limits so that you
> >> >>>>> can finish sooner.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>> This patch changes the calculation method of load and target frequency
> >> >>>>>> considering 2 points:
> >> >>>>>> - Load computation should be independent from current or average
> >> >>>>>> measured frequency. For example an absolute load 80% at 100MHz is not
> >> >>>>>> necessarily equivalent to 8% at 1000MHz in the next sampling interval.
> >> >>>>>> - Target frequency should be increased to any value of frequency table
> >> >>>>>> proportional to absolute load, instead to only the max. Thus:
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> Target frequency = C * load
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> where C = policy->cpuinfo.max_freq / 100
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> Tested on Intel i7-3770 CPU @ 3.40GHz and on Quad core 1500MHz Krait.
> >> >>>>>> Phoronix benchmark of Linux Kernel Compilation 3.1 test shows an
> >> >>>>>> increase ~1.5% in performance. cpufreq_stats (time_in_state) shows
> >> >>>>>> that middle frequencies are used more, with this patch. Highest
> >> >>>>>> and lowest frequencies were used less by ~9%
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Can you also use powertop to measure the percentage of time spent in idle
> >> >>> states for the same workload with and without your patchset?  Also, it would
> >> >>> be good to measure the total energy consumption somehow ...
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Thanks,
> >> >>> Rafael
> >> >>
> >> >> Hi Rafael,
> >> >>
> >> >> I repeated the tests extracting also powertop results.
> >> >> Measurement steps with and without this patch:
> >> >> 1) Reboot system
> >> >> 2) Running twice Phoronix benchmark of Linux Kernel Compilation 3.1 test
> >> >>     without taking measurement
> >> >> 3) Wait few minutes
> >> >> 4) Run Phoronix and powertop for 100secs and take measurement.
> >> > 
> >> > Well, while this is not conclusive, it definitely looks very promising. :-)
> >> > 
> >> > We're seeing measurable performance improvement with the patchset applied *and*
> >> > more time spent in idle states both at the same time.  I'd be very surprised if
> >> > the energy consumption measuremets did not confirm that the patchset allowed
> >> > us to reduce it.
> >> > 
> >> > If my computations are correct (somebody please check), the cores spent about
> >> > 20% more time in idle on the average with the patchset applied and in addition
> >> > to that the cc6 residency was greater by about 2% on the average with respect
> >> > to the kernel without the patchset.
> >> > 
> >> > We need to verify if there are gains (or at least no regressions) with other
> >> > workloads, but since this *also* reduces code complexity quite a bit, I'm
> >> > seriously considering taking it.
> >> > 
> >> >> I will try to repeat the test and take measurements with turbostat as
> >> >> Borislav suggested.
> >> > 
> >> > Please do!
> >> > 
> >> > Thanks,
> >> > Rafael
> >> > 
> >> 
> >> Hi,
> >> 
> >> I repeated the tests extracting results from turbostat.
> >> Measurement steps with and without this patch:
> >> 1) Reboot system
> >> 2) Running twice Phoronix benchmark of Linux Kernel Compilation 3.1 test
> >>    without taking measurement
> >> 3) Wait few minutes
> >> 4) Run Phoronix and turbostat (-i 100) and take measurement
> >
> >You need to do something like
> >
> ># ./turbostat <command invoking the phoronix suite>
> >
> >Did you do that?
> >
> >Rafael

-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/