Re: Alternatives to /sys/kernel/debug/wakeup_sources

[Saravana Kannan]

On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 1:09 PM 'Joel Fernandes' via kernel-team
<kernel-team@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 3:59 PM 'Saravana Kannan' via kernel-team
> <kernel-team@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 19, 2019, 11:55 AM 'Joel Fernandes' via kernel-team <kernel-team@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 2:35 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman
> >> <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 02:01:36PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> >> > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 1:07 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman
> >> > > <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 12:53:12PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> >> > > > > > It is conceivable to have a "wakeup_sources" directory under
> >> > > > > > /sys/power/ and sysfs nodes for all wakeup sources in there.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > One of the "issues" with this is, now if you have say 100 wake up
> >> > > > > sources, with 10 entries each, then we're talking about a 1000 sysfs
> >> > > > > files. Each one has to be opened, and read individually. This adds
> >> > > > > overhead and it is more convenient to read from a single file. The
> >> > > > > problem is this single file is not ABI. So the question I guess is,
> >> > > > > how do we solve this in both an ABI friendly way while keeping the
> >> > > > > overhead low.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > How much overhead?  Have you measured it, reading from virtual files is
> >> > > > fast :)
> >> > >
> >> > > I measured, and it is definitely not free. If you create and read a
> >> > > 1000 files and just return a string back, it can take up to 11-13
> >> > > milliseconds (did not lock CPU frequencies, was just looking for
> >> > > average ball park). This is assuming that the counter reading is just
> >> > > doing that, and nothing else is being done to return the sysfs data
> >> > > which is probably not always true in practice.
> >> > >
> >> > > Our display pipeline deadline is around 16ms at 60Hz. Conceivably, any
> >> > > CPU scheduling competion reading sysfs can hurt the deadline. There's
> >> > > also the question of power - we definitely have spent time in the past
> >> > > optimizing other virtual files such as /proc/pid/smaps for this reason
> >> > > where it spent lots of CPU time.
> >> >
> >> > smaps was "odd", but that was done after measurements were actually made
> >> > to prove it was needed.  That hasn't happened yet :)
> >> >
> >> > And is there a reason you have to do this every 16ms?
> >>
> >> Not every, I was just saying whenever it happens and a frame delivery
> >> deadline is missed, then a frame drop can occur which can result in a
> >> poor user experience.
> >
> >
> > But this is not done in the UI thread context. So some thread running for more than 16ms shouldn't cause a frame drop. If it does, we have bigger problems.
> >
>
> Not really. That depends on the priority of the other thread and other
> things. It can obviously time share the same CPU as the UI thread if
> it is not configured correctly. Even with CFS it can reduce the time
> consumed by other "real-time" CFS threads. I am not sure what you are
> proposing, there are also (obviously) power issues with things running
> for long times pointlessly. We should try to do better if we can. As
> Greg said, some study/research can be done on the use case before
> settling for a solution (sysfs or other).
>

Agree, power and optimization is good. Just saying that the UI example
is not a real one. If the UI thread is that poorly configured that
some thread running for a second can cause frame drops in a multicore
system, that's a problem with the UI framework design.

-Saravana

> --
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kernel-team+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>