linux-toradex.git/include/linux/energy_model.h, branch v5.19-rc3 Linux kernel for Apalis and Colibri modules PM: EM: Change the order of arguments in the .active_power() callback 2022-04-13T14:26:17+00:00 Lukasz Luba lukasz.luba@arm.com 2022-03-21T09:57:25+00:00 75a3a99a5a9886af13be44e640cb415ebda80db2 The .active_power() callback passes the device pointer when it's called. Aligned with a convetion present in other subsystems and pass the 'dev' as a first argument. It looks more cleaner. Adjust all affected drivers which implement that API callback. Suggested-by: Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com> Reviewed-by: Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> 
The .active_power() callback passes the device pointer when it's called.
Aligned with a convetion present in other subsystems and pass the 'dev'
as a first argument. It looks more cleaner.

Adjust all affected drivers which implement that API callback.

Suggested-by: Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>
Reviewed-by: Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
PM: EM: Add artificial EM flag 2022-04-13T14:26:17+00:00 Pierre Gondois Pierre.Gondois@arm.com 2022-03-21T09:57:23+00:00 fc3a9a9858478ab5f8441765a3f9552a0ceba10c The Energy Model (EM) can be used on platforms which are missing real power information. Those platforms would implement .get_cost() which populates needed values for the Energy Aware Scheduler (EAS). The EAS doesn't use 'power' fields from EM, but other frameworks might use them. Thus, to avoid miss-usage of this specific type of EM, introduce a new flags which can be checked by other frameworks. Signed-off-by: Pierre Gondois <Pierre.Gondois@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com> Reviewed-by: Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> 
The Energy Model (EM) can be used on platforms which are missing real
power information. Those platforms would implement .get_cost() which
populates needed values for the Energy Aware Scheduler (EAS). The EAS
doesn't use 'power' fields from EM, but other frameworks might use them.
Thus, to avoid miss-usage of this specific type of EM, introduce a new
flags which can be checked by other frameworks.

Signed-off-by: Pierre Gondois <Pierre.Gondois@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>
Reviewed-by: Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
PM: EM: Add .get_cost() callback 2022-04-13T14:26:17+00:00 Lukasz Luba lukasz.luba@arm.com 2022-03-21T09:57:22+00:00 bdc21a4d286c6917fe966fd765de99411095b1b4 The Energy Model (EM) supports devices which report abstract power scale, not only real Watts. The primary goal for EM is to enable the Energy Aware Scheduler (EAS) for a given platform. Some of the platforms might not be able to deliver proper power values. The only information that they might have is the relative efficiency between CPU types. Thus, it makes sense to remove some restrictions in the EM framework and introduce a mechanism which would support those platforms. What is crucial for EAS to operate is the 'cost' field in the EM. The 'cost' is calculated internally in EM framework based on knowledge from 'power' values. The 'cost' values must be strictly increasing. The existing API with its 'power' value size restrictions cannot guarantee that the 'cost' will meet this requirement. Since the platform is missing this detailed information, but has only efficiency details, introduce a new custom callback in the EM framework. The new callback would allow to provide the 'cost' values which reflect efficiency of the CPUs. This would allow to provide EAS information which has different relation than what would be forced by the EM internal formulas calculating 'cost' values. Thanks to this new callback it is possible to create a system view for EAS which has no overlapping performance states across many Performance Domains. Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com> Reviewed-by: Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> 
The Energy Model (EM) supports devices which report abstract power scale,
not only real Watts. The primary goal for EM is to enable the Energy Aware
Scheduler (EAS) for a given platform. Some of the platforms might not be
able to deliver proper power values. The only information that they might
have is the relative efficiency between CPU types.

Thus, it makes sense to remove some restrictions in the EM framework and
introduce a mechanism which would support those platforms. What is crucial
for EAS to operate is the 'cost' field in the EM. The 'cost' is calculated
internally in EM framework based on knowledge from 'power' values.
The 'cost' values must be strictly increasing. The existing API with its
'power' value size restrictions cannot guarantee that the 'cost' will meet
this requirement.

Since the platform is missing this detailed information, but has only
efficiency details, introduce a new custom callback in the EM framework.
The new callback would allow to provide the 'cost' values which reflect
efficiency of the CPUs. This would allow to provide EAS information which
has different relation than what would be forced by the EM internal
formulas calculating 'cost' values. Thanks to this new callback it is
possible to create a system view for EAS which has no overlapping
performance states across many Performance Domains.

Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>
Reviewed-by: Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
PM: EM: add macro to set .active_power() callback conditionally 2022-03-03T04:05:04+00:00 Lukasz Luba lukasz.luba@arm.com 2022-03-02T11:29:15+00:00 caeea9e6671984c3865918459d756b961a24bb49 The Energy Model is able to use new power values coming from DT. Add a new macro which is helpful in setting the .active_power() callback conditionally in setup time. The dual-macro implementation handles both kernel configurations: w/ EM and w/o EM built-in. Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com> Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> 
The Energy Model is able to use new power values coming from DT. Add a new
macro which is helpful in setting the .active_power() callback
conditionally in setup time. The dual-macro implementation handles both
kernel configurations: w/ EM and w/o EM built-in.

Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
PM: EM: Allow skipping inefficient states 2021-10-05T14:33:05+00:00 Vincent Donnefort vincent.donnefort@arm.com 2021-09-08T14:05:25+00:00 8354eb9eb3ddb4a8d0857648a470beffcc9d8639 The new performance domain flag EM_PERF_DOMAIN_SKIP_INEFFICIENCIES allows to not take into account inefficient states when estimating energy consumption. This intends to let the Energy Model know that CPUFreq itself will skip inefficiencies and such states don't need to be part of the estimation anymore. Signed-off-by: Vincent Donnefort <vincent.donnefort@arm.com> Reviewed-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com> Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> 
The new performance domain flag EM_PERF_DOMAIN_SKIP_INEFFICIENCIES allows
to not take into account inefficient states when estimating energy
consumption. This intends to let the Energy Model know that CPUFreq itself
will skip inefficiencies and such states don't need to be part of the
estimation anymore.

Signed-off-by: Vincent Donnefort <vincent.donnefort@arm.com>
Reviewed-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
PM: EM: Extend em_perf_domain with a flag field 2021-10-05T14:33:05+00:00 Vincent Donnefort vincent.donnefort@arm.com 2021-09-08T14:05:24+00:00 88f7a89560f6d0fc7803a8933637488f14e0a098 Merge the current "milliwatts" option into a "flag" field. This intends to prepare the extension of this structure for inefficient states support in the Energy Model. Signed-off-by: Vincent Donnefort <vincent.donnefort@arm.com> Reviewed-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com> Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> 
Merge the current "milliwatts" option into a "flag" field. This intends to
prepare the extension of this structure for inefficient states support in
the Energy Model.

Signed-off-by: Vincent Donnefort <vincent.donnefort@arm.com>
Reviewed-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
PM: EM: Mark inefficient states 2021-10-05T14:33:05+00:00 Vincent Donnefort vincent.donnefort@arm.com 2021-09-08T14:05:23+00:00 c8ed99533dbc0fcc1142671ec80acb33045d2999 Some SoCs, such as the sd855 have OPPs within the same performance domain, whose cost is higher than others with a higher frequency. Even though those OPPs are interesting from a cooling perspective, it makes no sense to use them when the device can run at full capacity. Those OPPs handicap the performance domain, when choosing the most energy-efficient CPU and are wasting energy. They are inefficient. Hence, add support for such OPPs to the Energy Model. The table can now be read skipping inefficient performance states (and by extension, inefficient OPPs). Signed-off-by: Vincent Donnefort <vincent.donnefort@arm.com> Reviewed-by: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org> Reviewed-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com> Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> 
Some SoCs, such as the sd855 have OPPs within the same performance domain,
whose cost is higher than others with a higher frequency. Even though
those OPPs are interesting from a cooling perspective, it makes no sense
to use them when the device can run at full capacity. Those OPPs handicap
the performance domain, when choosing the most energy-efficient CPU and
are wasting energy. They are inefficient.

Hence, add support for such OPPs to the Energy Model. The table can now
be read skipping inefficient performance states (and by extension,
inefficient OPPs).

Signed-off-by: Vincent Donnefort <vincent.donnefort@arm.com>
Reviewed-by: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org>
Reviewed-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
PM: EM: fix kernel-doc comments 2021-09-07T19:17:28+00:00 Lukasz Luba lukasz.luba@arm.com 2021-09-06T08:44:52+00:00 ca67408ad57a5a67ad6801d792c40c010451bdef Fix the kernel-doc comments for the improved Energy Model documentation. Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> 
Fix the kernel-doc comments for the improved Energy Model documentation.

Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
PM: EM: Increase energy calculation precision 2021-08-06T13:30:42+00:00 Lukasz Luba lukasz.luba@arm.com 2021-08-03T10:27:43+00:00 7fcc17d0cb12938d2b3507973a6f93fc9ed2c7a1 The Energy Model (EM) provides useful information about device power in each performance state to other subsystems like: Energy Aware Scheduler (EAS). The energy calculation in EAS does arithmetic operation based on the EM em_cpu_energy(). Current implementation of that function uses em_perf_state::cost as a pre-computed cost coefficient equal to: cost = power * max_frequency / frequency. The 'power' is expressed in milli-Watts (or in abstract scale). There are corner cases when the EAS energy calculation for two Performance Domains (PDs) return the same value. The EAS compares these values to choose smaller one. It might happen that this values are equal due to rounding error. In such scenario, we need better resolution, e.g. 1000 times better. To provide this possibility increase the resolution in the em_perf_state::cost for 64-bit architectures. The cost of increasing resolution on 32-bit is pretty high (64-bit division) and is not justified since there are no new 32bit big.LITTLE EAS systems expected which would benefit from this higher resolution. This patch allows to avoid the rounding to milli-Watt errors, which might occur in EAS energy estimation for each PD. The rounding error is common for small tasks which have small utilization value. There are two places in the code where it makes a difference: 1. In the find_energy_efficient_cpu() where we are searching for best_delta. We might suffer there when two PDs return the same result, like in the example below. Scenario: Low utilized system e.g. ~200 sum_util for PD0 and ~220 for PD1. There are quite a few small tasks ~10-15 util. These tasks would suffer for the rounding error. These utilization values are typical when running games on Android. One of our partners has reported 5..10mA less battery drain when running with increased resolution. Some details: We have two PDs: PD0 (big) and PD1 (little) Let's compare w/o patch set ('old') and w/ patch set ('new') We are comparing energy w/ task and w/o task placed in the PDs a) 'old' w/o patch set, PD0 task_util = 13 cost = 480 sum_util_w/o_task = 215 sum_util_w_task = 228 scale_cpu = 1024 energy_w/o_task = 480 * 215 / 1024 = 100.78 => 100 energy_w_task = 480 * 228 / 1024 = 106.87 => 106 energy_diff = 106 - 100 = 6 (this is equal to 'old' PD1's energy_diff in 'c)') b) 'new' w/ patch set, PD0 task_util = 13 cost = 480 * 1000 = 480000 sum_util_w/o_task = 215 sum_util_w_task = 228 energy_w/o_task = 480000 * 215 / 1024 = 100781 energy_w_task = 480000 * 228 / 1024 = 106875 energy_diff = 106875 - 100781 = 6094 (this is not equal to 'new' PD1's energy_diff in 'd)') c) 'old' w/o patch set, PD1 task_util = 13 cost = 160 sum_util_w/o_task = 283 sum_util_w_task = 293 scale_cpu = 355 energy_w/o_task = 160 * 283 / 355 = 127.55 => 127 energy_w_task = 160 * 296 / 355 = 133.41 => 133 energy_diff = 133 - 127 = 6 (this is equal to 'old' PD0's energy_diff in 'a)') d) 'new' w/ patch set, PD1 task_util = 13 cost = 160 * 1000 = 160000 sum_util_w/o_task = 283 sum_util_w_task = 293 scale_cpu = 355 energy_w/o_task = 160000 * 283 / 355 = 127549 energy_w_task = 160000 * 296 / 355 = 133408 energy_diff = 133408 - 127549 = 5859 (this is not equal to 'new' PD0's energy_diff in 'b)') 2. Difference in the 6% energy margin filter at the end of find_energy_efficient_cpu(). With this patch the margin comparison also has better resolution, so it's possible to have better task placement thanks to that. Fixes: 27871f7a8a341ef ("PM: Introduce an Energy Model management framework") Reported-by: CCJ Yeh <CCj.Yeh@mediatek.com> Reviewed-by: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> 
The Energy Model (EM) provides useful information about device power in
each performance state to other subsystems like: Energy Aware Scheduler
(EAS). The energy calculation in EAS does arithmetic operation based on
the EM em_cpu_energy(). Current implementation of that function uses
em_perf_state::cost as a pre-computed cost coefficient equal to:
cost = power * max_frequency / frequency.
The 'power' is expressed in milli-Watts (or in abstract scale).

There are corner cases when the EAS energy calculation for two Performance
Domains (PDs) return the same value. The EAS compares these values to
choose smaller one. It might happen that this values are equal due to
rounding error. In such scenario, we need better resolution, e.g. 1000
times better. To provide this possibility increase the resolution in the
em_perf_state::cost for 64-bit architectures. The cost of increasing
resolution on 32-bit is pretty high (64-bit division) and is not justified
since there are no new 32bit big.LITTLE EAS systems expected which would
benefit from this higher resolution.

This patch allows to avoid the rounding to milli-Watt errors, which might
occur in EAS energy estimation for each PD. The rounding error is common
for small tasks which have small utilization value.

There are two places in the code where it makes a difference:
1. In the find_energy_efficient_cpu() where we are searching for
best_delta. We might suffer there when two PDs return the same result,
like in the example below.

Scenario:
Low utilized system e.g. ~200 sum_util for PD0 and ~220 for PD1. There
are quite a few small tasks ~10-15 util. These tasks would suffer for
the rounding error. These utilization values are typical when running games
on Android. One of our partners has reported 5..10mA less battery drain
when running with increased resolution.

Some details:
We have two PDs: PD0 (big) and PD1 (little)
Let's compare w/o patch set ('old') and w/ patch set ('new')
We are comparing energy w/ task and w/o task placed in the PDs

a) 'old' w/o patch set, PD0
task_util = 13
cost = 480
sum_util_w/o_task = 215
sum_util_w_task = 228
scale_cpu = 1024
energy_w/o_task = 480 * 215 / 1024 = 100.78 => 100
energy_w_task = 480 * 228 / 1024 = 106.87 => 106
energy_diff = 106 - 100 = 6
(this is equal to 'old' PD1's energy_diff in 'c)')

b) 'new' w/ patch set, PD0
task_util = 13
cost = 480 * 1000 = 480000
sum_util_w/o_task = 215
sum_util_w_task = 228
energy_w/o_task = 480000 * 215 / 1024 = 100781
energy_w_task = 480000 * 228 / 1024  = 106875
energy_diff = 106875 - 100781 = 6094
(this is not equal to 'new' PD1's energy_diff in 'd)')

c) 'old' w/o patch set, PD1
task_util = 13
cost = 160
sum_util_w/o_task = 283
sum_util_w_task = 293
scale_cpu = 355
energy_w/o_task = 160 * 283 / 355 = 127.55 => 127
energy_w_task = 160 * 296 / 355 = 133.41 => 133
energy_diff = 133 - 127 = 6
(this is equal to 'old' PD0's energy_diff in 'a)')

d) 'new' w/ patch set, PD1
task_util = 13
cost = 160 * 1000 = 160000
sum_util_w/o_task = 283
sum_util_w_task = 293
scale_cpu = 355
energy_w/o_task = 160000 * 283 / 355 = 127549
energy_w_task = 160000 * 296 / 355 =   133408
energy_diff = 133408 - 127549 = 5859
(this is not equal to 'new' PD0's energy_diff in 'b)')

2. Difference in the 6% energy margin filter at the end of
find_energy_efficient_cpu(). With this patch the margin comparison also
has better resolution, so it's possible to have better task placement
thanks to that.

Fixes: 27871f7a8a341ef ("PM: Introduce an Energy Model management framework")
Reported-by: CCJ Yeh <CCj.Yeh@mediatek.com>
Reviewed-by: Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
sched/cpufreq: Consider reduced CPU capacity in energy calculation 2021-06-17T12:11:43+00:00 Lukasz Luba lukasz.luba@arm.com 2021-06-14T19:12:38+00:00 8f1b971b4750e83e8fbd2f91a9efd4a38ad0ae51 Energy Aware Scheduling (EAS) needs to predict the decisions made by SchedUtil. The map_util_freq() exists to do that. There are corner cases where the max allowed frequency might be reduced (due to thermal). SchedUtil as a CPUFreq governor, is aware of that but EAS is not. This patch aims to address it. SchedUtil stores the maximum allowed frequency in 'sugov_policy::next_freq' field. EAS has to predict that value, which is the real used frequency. That value is made after a call to cpufreq_driver_resolve_freq() which clamps to the CPUFreq policy limits. In the existing code EAS is not able to predict that real frequency. This leads to energy estimation errors. To avoid wrong energy estimation in EAS (due to frequency miss prediction) make sure that the step which calculates Performance Domain frequency, is also aware of the allowed CPU capacity. Furthermore, modify map_util_freq() to not extend the frequency value. Instead, use map_util_perf() to extend the util value in both places: SchedUtil and EAS, but for EAS clamp it to max allowed CPU capacity. In the end, we achieve the same desirable behavior for both subsystems and alignment in regards to the real CPU frequency. Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Acked-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> (For the schedutil part) Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210614191238.23224-1-lukasz.luba@arm.com 
Energy Aware Scheduling (EAS) needs to predict the decisions made by
SchedUtil. The map_util_freq() exists to do that.

There are corner cases where the max allowed frequency might be reduced
(due to thermal). SchedUtil as a CPUFreq governor, is aware of that
but EAS is not. This patch aims to address it.

SchedUtil stores the maximum allowed frequency in
'sugov_policy::next_freq' field. EAS has to predict that value, which is
the real used frequency. That value is made after a call to
cpufreq_driver_resolve_freq() which clamps to the CPUFreq policy limits.
In the existing code EAS is not able to predict that real frequency.
This leads to energy estimation errors.

To avoid wrong energy estimation in EAS (due to frequency miss prediction)
make sure that the step which calculates Performance Domain frequency,
is also aware of the allowed CPU capacity.

Furthermore, modify map_util_freq() to not extend the frequency value.
Instead, use map_util_perf() to extend the util value in both places:
SchedUtil and EAS, but for EAS clamp it to max allowed CPU capacity.
In the end, we achieve the same desirable behavior for both subsystems
and alignment in regards to the real CPU frequency.

Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Acked-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> (For the schedutil part)
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210614191238.23224-1-lukasz.luba@arm.com