Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] sched: idle: IRQ based next prediction for idle period

[Daniel Lezcano]

On 01/06/2016 06:40 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Jan 2016, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>
> > Many IRQs are quiet most of the time, or they tend to come in bursts of
> > fairly equal time intervals within each burst. It is therefore possible
> > to detect those IRQs with stable intervals and guestimate when the next
> > IRQ event is most likely to happen.
> >
> > Examples of such IRQs may include audio related IRQs where the FIFO size
> > and/or DMA descriptor size with the sample rate create stable intervals,
> > block devices during large data transfers, etc.  Even network streaming
> > of multimedia content creates patterns of periodic network interface IRQs
> > in some cases.
> >
> > This patch adds code to track the mean interval and variance for each IRQ
> > over a window of time intervals between IRQ events. Those statistics can
> > be used to assist cpuidle in selecting the most appropriate sleep state
> > by predicting the most likely time for the next interrupt.
> >
> > Because the stats are gathered in interrupt context, the core computation
> > is as light as possible.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@xxxxxxxxxx>

[ ... ]

> > +
> > +		diff = ktime_sub(now, w->timestamp);
> > +
> > +		/*
> > +		 * There is no point attempting predictions on interrupts more
> > +		 * than 1 second apart. This has no benefit for sleep state
> > +		 * selection and increases the risk of overflowing our variance
> > +		 * computation. Reset all stats in that case.
> > +		 */
> > +		if (unlikely(ktime_after(diff, ktime_set(1, 0)))) {
> > +			stats_reset(&w->stats);
> > +			continue;
> > +		}
>
> The above is wrong. It is not computing the interval between successive
> interruts but rather the interval between the last interrupt occurrence
> and the present time (i.e. when we're about to go idle).  This won't
> prevent interrupt intervals greater than one second from being summed
> and potentially overflowing the variance if this code is executed less
> than a second after one such IRQ interval.  This test should rather be
> performed in sched_idle_irq().

Hi Nico,

I have been through here again and think we should duplicate the test 
because there are two cases:

1. We did not go idle and the interval measured in sched_idle_irq is 
more than one second, then the stats are reset. I suggest to use an 
approximation of one second: (diff < (1 << 20)) as we are in the fast
path.

2. We are going idle and the latest interrupt happened one second apart 
from now. So we keep the current test.

  -- Daniel



--
 <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org â Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog