CPU Hotplug add/remove optimizations
in [Kernel]
|
Prev: [PATCH 4/4] Checkpatch: warn about unexpectedly long msleep's
Next: [PATCH] perf, powerpc: fsl_emb: Restore setting perf_sample_data.period
From: Rohit Vaswani on 2 Aug 2010 18:20 Hi, We are trying to use cpu hotplug to turn off a cpu when it is not in use to improve power management. I am trying to optimize the cpu hotplug add and cpu hotplug remove timings. Currently cpu hotplug add takes around 250ms and cpu hotplug remove takes 190 ms. For the current purposes we want to assume that we are removing and adding the same core. It seems that since we are actually not replacing the core � there could be a lot of initialization overhead that could be saved and restored instead of calibrating the entire core again. One such thing we have been looking at is that once a core is powered up during cpu hotplug add, it runs the calibrate_delay routine to calculate the value of loops_per_jiffy. In such a case could we bypass the calibrate_delay function and just save and restore the value of loops_per_jiffy? Does this approach seem wrong to anyone? Can we safely assume that the core will start at the same clock speed at which the value was stored and then restored? And thus keeping the value of loops_per_jiffy that we restored consistent with the rest of the system. Does anyone else have other ideas to achieve better results? I will be looking at implementing any solutions and advice and following up with metrics and results. Thanks, Rohit Vaswani -- Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: Andi Kleen on 3 Aug 2010 04:10 Rohit Vaswani <rvaswani(a)codeaurora.org> writes: > Hi, > > We are trying to use cpu hotplug to turn off a cpu when it is not in > use to improve power management. It might not be a big issue on smaller systems, but CPU hotunplug involves stop_machine() and that is a very costly thing to do as systems become larger. > I am trying to optimize the cpu > hotplug add and cpu hotplug remove timings. Currently cpu hotplug add > takes around 250ms and cpu hotplug remove takes 190 ms. For the > current purposes we want to assume that we are removing and adding the > same core. It seems that since we are actually not replacing the core > � there could be a lot of initialization overhead that could be > saved and restored instead of calibrating the entire core again. > One such thing we have been looking at is that once a core is powered > up during cpu hotplug add, it runs the calibrate_delay routine to > calculate the value of loops_per_jiffy. In such a case could we bypass > the calibrate_delay function and just save and restore the value of > loops_per_jiffy? > Does this approach seem wrong to anyone? It's wrong on a system that supports socket hotplug. The CPU you're power up again might not be the same. In theory you could have some low level interface that distingushes these two cases, but right now that's not there. > Can we safely assume that the core will start at the same clock speed > at which the value was stored and then restored? That neither. -Andi -- ak(a)linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: Rohit Vaswani on 6 Aug 2010 16:10
On 8/3/2010 1:07 AM, Andi Kleen wrote: > Rohit Vaswani<rvaswani(a)codeaurora.org> writes: > >> Hi, >> >> We are trying to use cpu hotplug to turn off a cpu when it is not in >> use to improve power management. > It might not be a big issue on smaller systems, but CPU hotunplug > involves stop_machine() and that is a very costly thing > to do as systems become larger. I think that currently for users, the cpu hotplug add time is what matters more - so that the user does not experience that latency in the UI when the core comes up. So I guess we could accept the latency for CPU hotunplug for the time being because eventually it will save power. >> I am trying to optimize the cpu >> hotplug add and cpu hotplug remove timings. Currently cpu hotplug add >> takes around 250ms and cpu hotplug remove takes 190 ms. For the >> current purposes we want to assume that we are removing and adding the >> same core. It seems that since we are actually not replacing the core >> � there could be a lot of initialization overhead that could be >> saved and restored instead of calibrating the entire core again. >> One such thing we have been looking at is that once a core is powered >> up during cpu hotplug add, it runs the calibrate_delay routine to >> calculate the value of loops_per_jiffy. In such a case could we bypass >> the calibrate_delay function and just save and restore the value of >> loops_per_jiffy? >> Does this approach seem wrong to anyone? > It's wrong on a system that supports socket hotplug. The CPU you're > power up again might not be the same. Could we have a separate code path for bringing up the same core that we just hot-unplugged? One way could be that the user can specify that it is bringing up the same core and thus the calibrate_delay function could be skipped. If a new core is being added - the code path would calibrate the core again. Currently the calibrate_delay function takes up almost the entire 250ms of cpu hotplug-add time. Thus, if we can get rid of that function call, when we know that we are bringing up the same core - the cpu hotplug add could be almost instantaneous. Is there a better way to accomplish this? Are there any other issues that I may be missing in order to get this working? > In theory you could have some low level interface that distingushes > these two cases, but right now that's not there. > >> Can we safely assume that the core will start at the same clock speed >> at which the value was stored and then restored? > That neither. > > -Andi Thanks, Rohit Vaswani -- Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ |