Re: [RFC/RFT][PATCH v2] cpuidle: New timer events oriented governor for tickless systems

[Giovanni Gherdovich]

On Sun, 2018-11-04 at 11:06 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 7:36:21 PM CET Giovanni Gherdovich wrote:
>
> [...]
> You can use the cpu_idle trace point to correlate the selected state index
> with the observed idle duration (that's what Doug did IIUC).

True, that works; although I ended up slapping a tracepoint right at the
beginning of the teo_update() and capturing the variables
cpu_data->last_state, dev->last_residency and dev->cpu.

I should have some plots to share soon. I really wanted to do in-kernel
histograms with systemtap as opposed to collecting data with ftrace and doing
post-processing, because I noticed that the latter approach generates lots of
events and wakeups from idle on the cpu that handles the ftrace data. It's
kind of a workload in itself and spoils the results.

>Â
> Then, if the observed idle duration is between the target residency of the
> selected state and the target residency of the next one, the selected state
> is adequate and that's what we care about really.
>Â
> If the observed idle duration is below the target residency of the selected
> state, the selected state is too deep and it if is above (or equal to) the
> target residency of the next state, it is too shallow.

Thanks for explaining this.

>Â
> > After that it would be nice to somehow know where timers came from; i.e. if
> > I see that residences in a given state are consistently shorter than
> > they're supposed to be, it would be interesting to see who set the timer
> > that causes the wakeup. But... I'm not sure to know how to do that :) Do
> > you have a strategy to track down the origin of timers/interrupts? Is there
> > any script you're using to evaluate teo that you can share?
>Â
> I need to think about that TBH.
>Â
> The information that we can get readily should give use quite a good idea of
> what happens on average, though, so let's first do that and then try to dig
> deeper if need be.
>Â
> I think that the difference between the v1 and v2 of the TEO governor comes
> mostly from the way in which they handle patterns of "early" wakeups.ÂÂThe
> method used in v1 is very crude (and arguably invalid in general) and it
> will cause shallow states to be selected more often, while the v2 tries to
> be more "intelligent", but it may be overly conservative with that.
>Â
> I'm working on a v3 that will try to address the above ATM, but I'd like to run
> it on my systems first (I'm going back home from a conference right now).
>

I've seen v3, I'll send you the test results ASAP.

Giovanni