Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-161985-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
From: Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@linutronix.de>
To: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Cc: Oliver Sang <oliver.sang@intel.com>, oe-lkp@lists.linux.dev,
 lkp@intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner
 <tglx@linutronix.de>, ying.huang@intel.com, feng.tang@intel.com,
 fengwei.yin@intel.com, Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>, Daniel
 Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [linus:master] [timers] 7ee9887703:
 stress-ng.uprobe.ops_per_sec -17.1% regression
In-Reply-To: <3aba1a1d-8ebc-4ee0-9caf-d9baae586db7@arm.com>
References: <Zgtjdd0C2FzYVBto@xsang-OptiPlex-9020> <87zfth3l6y.fsf@somnus>
 <CAJZ5v0g_GKF8-QK5UdFCpJapf+MK7EouQ7hMTVtPYRjNNyUt+g@mail.gmail.com>
 <3aba1a1d-8ebc-4ee0-9caf-d9baae586db7@arm.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2024 11:26:22 +0200
Message-ID: <87zftcy0xt.fsf@somnus>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,

Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@arm.com> writes:
> On 4/26/24 17:03, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 10:23=E2=80=AFAM Anna-Maria Behnsen
>> <anna-maria@linutronix.de> wrote:

[...]

>>> So my assumption here is, that cpuidle governors assume that a deeper
>>> idle state could be choosen and selecting the deeper idle state makes an
>>> overhead when returning from idle. But I have to notice here, that I'm
>>> still not familiar with cpuidle internals... So I would be happy about
>>> some hints how I can debug/trace cpuidle internals to falsify or verify
>>> this assumption.
>>=20
>> You can look at the "usage" and "time" numbers for idle states in
>>=20
>> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu*/cpuidle/state*/
>>=20
>> The "usage" value is the number of times the governor has selected the
>> given state and the "time" is the total idle time after requesting the
>> given state (ie. the sum of time intervals between selecting that
>> state by the governor and wakeup from it).
>>=20
>> If "usage" decreases for deeper (higher number) idle states relative
>> to its value for shallower (lower number) idle states after applying
>> the test patch, that will indicate that the theory is valid.
>
> I agree with Rafael here, this is the first thing to check, those
> statistics. Then, when you see difference in those stats in baseline
> vs. patched version, we can analyze the internal gov decisions
> with help of tracing.
>
> Please also share how many idle states is in those testing platforms.

Thanks Rafael and Lukasz, for the feedback here!

So I simply added the state usage values for all 112 CPUs and calculated
the diff before and after the stress-ng call. The values are from a
single run.

		good            bad		bad+patch
                ----            ---             ---------
state0          111		68              234
state1          419774		362549		408681
state2          3184799		2499565		3185723


good:	57e95a5c4117 ("timers: Introduce function to check timer base
        is_idle flag")
bad:    v6.9-rc4
bad+patch: v6.9-rc4 + patch

I choosed v6.9-rc4 for "bad", to make sure all the timer pull model fixes
are applied.

If I got Raphael right, the values indicate, that my theory is not
right...

Thanks,

	Anna-Maria