Re: [RESEND PATCH v2 0/2] Enable Odroid-XU3/4 to use Energy Model and Energy Aware Scheduler

[Marek Szyprowski]

Hi Lukasz

On 21.02.2020 11:32, Lukasz Luba wrote:
> On 2/20/20 6:00 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 09:56:34AM +0000, Lukasz Luba wrote:
>>> This is just a resend, now with proper v2 in the patches subject.
>>>
>>> The Odroid-XU4/3 is a decent and easy accessible ARM big.LITTLE 
>>> platform,
>>> which might be used for research and development.
>>>
>>> This small patch set provides possibility to run Energy Aware 
>>> Scheduler (EAS)
>>> on Odroid-XU4/3 and experiment with it.
>>>
>>> The patch 1/2 provides 'dynamic-power-coefficient' in CPU DT nodes, 
>>> which is
>>> then used by the Energy Model (EM).
>>> The patch 2/2 enables SCHED_MC (which adds another level in 
>>> scheduling domains)
>>> and enables EM making EAS possible to run (when schedutil is set as 
>>> a CPUFreq
>>> governor).
>>>
>>> 1. Test results
>>>
>>> Two types of different tests have been executed. The first is energy 
>>> test
>>> case showing impact on energy consumption of this patch set. It is 
>>> using a
>>> synthetic set of tasks (rt-app based). The second is the performance 
>>> test
>>> case which is using hackbench (less time to complete is better).
>>> In both tests schedutil has been used as cpufreq governor. In all tests
>>> PROVE_LOCKING has not been compiled into the kernels.
>>>
>>> 1.1 Energy test case
>>>
>>> 10 iterations of 24 periodic rt-app tasks (16ms period, 10% duty-cycle)
>>> with energy measurement. The cpufreq governor - schedutil. Unit is 
>>> Joules.
>>> The energy is calculated based on hwmon0 and hwmon3 power1_input.
>>> The goal is to save energy, lower is better.
>>>
>>> +-----------+-----------------+------------------------+
>>> |ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ | Without patches | With patchesÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ |
>>> +-----------+--------+--------+----------------+-------+
>>> | benchmark | Mean | RSD* | Mean | RSD* |
>>> +-----------+--------+--------+----------------+-------+
>>> | 24 rt-app |Â 21.56 |Â 1.37% |Â 19.85 (-9.2%) | 0.92% |
>>> | tasks | | | | |
>>> +-----------+--------+--------+----------------+-------+
>>>
>>> 1.2 Performance test case
>>>
>>> 10 consecutive iterations of hackbench (hackbench -l 500 -s 4096),
>>> no delay between two successive executions.
>>> The cpufreq governor - schedutil. Units in seconds.
>>> The goal is to see not regression, lower completion time is better.
>>>
>>> +-----------+-----------------+------------------------+
>>> |ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ | Without patches | With patchesÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ |
>>> +-----------+--------+--------+----------------+-------+
>>> | benchmark | MeanÂÂ | RSD*ÂÂ | MeanÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ | RSD*Â |
>>> +-----------+--------+--------+----------------+-------+
>>> | hackbench |Â 8.15Â | 2.86%Â |Â 7.95 (-2.5%)Â | 0.60% |
>>> +-----------+--------+--------+----------------+-------+
>>>
>>> *RSD: Relative Standard Deviation (std dev / mean)
>>
>> Nice measurements!
>
> Glad to hear that.
>
>>
>> Applied both, thank you.
>>
>
> Thank you for applying this.


After applying the patches I see the following warnings during boot (XU4):

energy_model: pd0: hertz/watts ratio non-monotonically decreasing: 
em_cap_state 1 >= em_cap_state0
energy_model: pd0: hertz/watts ratio non-monotonically decreasing: 
em_cap_state 3 >= em_cap_state2
energy_model: pd0: hertz/watts ratio non-monotonically decreasing: 
em_cap_state 4 >= em_cap_state3
energy_model: pd0: hertz/watts ratio non-monotonically decreasing: 
em_cap_state 5 >= em_cap_state4
energy_model: pd0: hertz/watts ratio non-monotonically decreasing: 
em_cap_state 8 >= em_cap_state7
energy_model: pd0: hertz/watts ratio non-monotonically decreasing: 
em_cap_state 10 >= em_cap_state9
energy_model: pd0: hertz/watts ratio non-monotonically decreasing: 
em_cap_state 11 >= em_cap_state10
energy_model: pd4: hertz/watts ratio non-monotonically decreasing: 
em_cap_state 1 >= em_cap_state0
energy_model: pd4: hertz/watts ratio non-monotonically decreasing: 
em_cap_state 2 >= em_cap_state1
energy_model: pd4: hertz/watts ratio non-monotonically decreasing: 
em_cap_state 3 >= em_cap_state2
energy_model: pd4: hertz/watts ratio non-monotonically decreasing: 
em_cap_state 4 >= em_cap_state3
energy_model: pd4: hertz/watts ratio non-monotonically decreasing: 
em_cap_state 5 >= em_cap_state4
energy_model: pd4: hertz/watts ratio non-monotonically decreasing: 
em_cap_state 6 >= em_cap_state5
energy_model: pd4: hertz/watts ratio non-monotonically decreasing: 
em_cap_state 8 >= em_cap_state7
energy_model: pd4: hertz/watts ratio non-monotonically decreasing: 
em_cap_state 9 >= em_cap_state8
energy_model: pd4: hertz/watts ratio non-monotonically decreasing: 
em_cap_state 10 >= em_cap_state9
energy_model: pd4: hertz/watts ratio non-monotonically decreasing: 
em_cap_state 13 >= em_cap_state12
energy_model: pd4: hertz/watts ratio non-monotonically decreasing: 
em_cap_state 15 >= em_cap_state14
energy_model: pd4: hertz/watts ratio non-monotonically decreasing: 
em_cap_state 16 >= em_cap_state15

Is it okay?

Best regards
-- 
Marek Szyprowski, PhD
Samsung R&D Institute Poland