diff options
Diffstat (limited to '')
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/admin-guide/pm/cpuidle.rst | 735 |
1 files changed, 735 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/pm/cpuidle.rst b/Documentation/admin-guide/pm/cpuidle.rst new file mode 100644 index 000000000..3596e3714 --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/pm/cpuidle.rst @@ -0,0 +1,735 @@ +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 +.. include:: <isonum.txt> + +.. |struct cpuidle_state| replace:: :c:type:`struct cpuidle_state <cpuidle_state>` +.. |cpufreq| replace:: :doc:`CPU Performance Scaling <cpufreq>` + +======================== +CPU Idle Time Management +======================== + +:Copyright: |copy| 2018 Intel Corporation + +:Author: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> + + +Concepts +======== + +Modern processors are generally able to enter states in which the execution of +a program is suspended and instructions belonging to it are not fetched from +memory or executed. Those states are the *idle* states of the processor. + +Since part of the processor hardware is not used in idle states, entering them +generally allows power drawn by the processor to be reduced and, in consequence, +it is an opportunity to save energy. + +CPU idle time management is an energy-efficiency feature concerned about using +the idle states of processors for this purpose. + +Logical CPUs +------------ + +CPU idle time management operates on CPUs as seen by the *CPU scheduler* (that +is the part of the kernel responsible for the distribution of computational +work in the system). In its view, CPUs are *logical* units. That is, they need +not be separate physical entities and may just be interfaces appearing to +software as individual single-core processors. In other words, a CPU is an +entity which appears to be fetching instructions that belong to one sequence +(program) from memory and executing them, but it need not work this way +physically. Generally, three different cases can be consider here. + +First, if the whole processor can only follow one sequence of instructions (one +program) at a time, it is a CPU. In that case, if the hardware is asked to +enter an idle state, that applies to the processor as a whole. + +Second, if the processor is multi-core, each core in it is able to follow at +least one program at a time. The cores need not be entirely independent of each +other (for example, they may share caches), but still most of the time they +work physically in parallel with each other, so if each of them executes only +one program, those programs run mostly independently of each other at the same +time. The entire cores are CPUs in that case and if the hardware is asked to +enter an idle state, that applies to the core that asked for it in the first +place, but it also may apply to a larger unit (say a "package" or a "cluster") +that the core belongs to (in fact, it may apply to an entire hierarchy of larger +units containing the core). Namely, if all of the cores in the larger unit +except for one have been put into idle states at the "core level" and the +remaining core asks the processor to enter an idle state, that may trigger it +to put the whole larger unit into an idle state which also will affect the +other cores in that unit. + +Finally, each core in a multi-core processor may be able to follow more than one +program in the same time frame (that is, each core may be able to fetch +instructions from multiple locations in memory and execute them in the same time +frame, but not necessarily entirely in parallel with each other). In that case +the cores present themselves to software as "bundles" each consisting of +multiple individual single-core "processors", referred to as *hardware threads* +(or hyper-threads specifically on Intel hardware), that each can follow one +sequence of instructions. Then, the hardware threads are CPUs from the CPU idle +time management perspective and if the processor is asked to enter an idle state +by one of them, the hardware thread (or CPU) that asked for it is stopped, but +nothing more happens, unless all of the other hardware threads within the same +core also have asked the processor to enter an idle state. In that situation, +the core may be put into an idle state individually or a larger unit containing +it may be put into an idle state as a whole (if the other cores within the +larger unit are in idle states already). + +Idle CPUs +--------- + +Logical CPUs, simply referred to as "CPUs" in what follows, are regarded as +*idle* by the Linux kernel when there are no tasks to run on them except for the +special "idle" task. + +Tasks are the CPU scheduler's representation of work. Each task consists of a +sequence of instructions to execute, or code, data to be manipulated while +running that code, and some context information that needs to be loaded into the +processor every time the task's code is run by a CPU. The CPU scheduler +distributes work by assigning tasks to run to the CPUs present in the system. + +Tasks can be in various states. In particular, they are *runnable* if there are +no specific conditions preventing their code from being run by a CPU as long as +there is a CPU available for that (for example, they are not waiting for any +events to occur or similar). When a task becomes runnable, the CPU scheduler +assigns it to one of the available CPUs to run and if there are no more runnable +tasks assigned to it, the CPU will load the given task's context and run its +code (from the instruction following the last one executed so far, possibly by +another CPU). [If there are multiple runnable tasks assigned to one CPU +simultaneously, they will be subject to prioritization and time sharing in order +to allow them to make some progress over time.] + +The special "idle" task becomes runnable if there are no other runnable tasks +assigned to the given CPU and the CPU is then regarded as idle. In other words, +in Linux idle CPUs run the code of the "idle" task called *the idle loop*. That +code may cause the processor to be put into one of its idle states, if they are +supported, in order to save energy, but if the processor does not support any +idle states, or there is not enough time to spend in an idle state before the +next wakeup event, or there are strict latency constraints preventing any of the +available idle states from being used, the CPU will simply execute more or less +useless instructions in a loop until it is assigned a new task to run. + + +.. _idle-loop: + +The Idle Loop +============= + +The idle loop code takes two major steps in every iteration of it. First, it +calls into a code module referred to as the *governor* that belongs to the CPU +idle time management subsystem called ``CPUIdle`` to select an idle state for +the CPU to ask the hardware to enter. Second, it invokes another code module +from the ``CPUIdle`` subsystem, called the *driver*, to actually ask the +processor hardware to enter the idle state selected by the governor. + +The role of the governor is to find an idle state most suitable for the +conditions at hand. For this purpose, idle states that the hardware can be +asked to enter by logical CPUs are represented in an abstract way independent of +the platform or the processor architecture and organized in a one-dimensional +(linear) array. That array has to be prepared and supplied by the ``CPUIdle`` +driver matching the platform the kernel is running on at the initialization +time. This allows ``CPUIdle`` governors to be independent of the underlying +hardware and to work with any platforms that the Linux kernel can run on. + +Each idle state present in that array is characterized by two parameters to be +taken into account by the governor, the *target residency* and the (worst-case) +*exit latency*. The target residency is the minimum time the hardware must +spend in the given state, including the time needed to enter it (which may be +substantial), in order to save more energy than it would save by entering one of +the shallower idle states instead. [The "depth" of an idle state roughly +corresponds to the power drawn by the processor in that state.] The exit +latency, in turn, is the maximum time it will take a CPU asking the processor +hardware to enter an idle state to start executing the first instruction after a +wakeup from that state. Note that in general the exit latency also must cover +the time needed to enter the given state in case the wakeup occurs when the +hardware is entering it and it must be entered completely to be exited in an +ordered manner. + +There are two types of information that can influence the governor's decisions. +First of all, the governor knows the time until the closest timer event. That +time is known exactly, because the kernel programs timers and it knows exactly +when they will trigger, and it is the maximum time the hardware that the given +CPU depends on can spend in an idle state, including the time necessary to enter +and exit it. However, the CPU may be woken up by a non-timer event at any time +(in particular, before the closest timer triggers) and it generally is not known +when that may happen. The governor can only see how much time the CPU actually +was idle after it has been woken up (that time will be referred to as the *idle +duration* from now on) and it can use that information somehow along with the +time until the closest timer to estimate the idle duration in future. How the +governor uses that information depends on what algorithm is implemented by it +and that is the primary reason for having more than one governor in the +``CPUIdle`` subsystem. + +There are four ``CPUIdle`` governors available, ``menu``, `TEO <teo-gov_>`_, +``ladder`` and ``haltpoll``. Which of them is used by default depends on the +configuration of the kernel and in particular on whether or not the scheduler +tick can be `stopped by the idle loop <idle-cpus-and-tick_>`_. Available +governors can be read from the :file:`available_governors`, and the governor +can be changed at runtime. The name of the ``CPUIdle`` governor currently +used by the kernel can be read from the :file:`current_governor_ro` or +:file:`current_governor` file under :file:`/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpuidle/` +in ``sysfs``. + +Which ``CPUIdle`` driver is used, on the other hand, usually depends on the +platform the kernel is running on, but there are platforms with more than one +matching driver. For example, there are two drivers that can work with the +majority of Intel platforms, ``intel_idle`` and ``acpi_idle``, one with +hardcoded idle states information and the other able to read that information +from the system's ACPI tables, respectively. Still, even in those cases, the +driver chosen at the system initialization time cannot be replaced later, so the +decision on which one of them to use has to be made early (on Intel platforms +the ``acpi_idle`` driver will be used if ``intel_idle`` is disabled for some +reason or if it does not recognize the processor). The name of the ``CPUIdle`` +driver currently used by the kernel can be read from the :file:`current_driver` +file under :file:`/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpuidle/` in ``sysfs``. + + +.. _idle-cpus-and-tick: + +Idle CPUs and The Scheduler Tick +================================ + +The scheduler tick is a timer that triggers periodically in order to implement +the time sharing strategy of the CPU scheduler. Of course, if there are +multiple runnable tasks assigned to one CPU at the same time, the only way to +allow them to make reasonable progress in a given time frame is to make them +share the available CPU time. Namely, in rough approximation, each task is +given a slice of the CPU time to run its code, subject to the scheduling class, +prioritization and so on and when that time slice is used up, the CPU should be +switched over to running (the code of) another task. The currently running task +may not want to give the CPU away voluntarily, however, and the scheduler tick +is there to make the switch happen regardless. That is not the only role of the +tick, but it is the primary reason for using it. + +The scheduler tick is problematic from the CPU idle time management perspective, +because it triggers periodically and relatively often (depending on the kernel +configuration, the length of the tick period is between 1 ms and 10 ms). +Thus, if the tick is allowed to trigger on idle CPUs, it will not make sense +for them to ask the hardware to enter idle states with target residencies above +the tick period length. Moreover, in that case the idle duration of any CPU +will never exceed the tick period length and the energy used for entering and +exiting idle states due to the tick wakeups on idle CPUs will be wasted. + +Fortunately, it is not really necessary to allow the tick to trigger on idle +CPUs, because (by definition) they have no tasks to run except for the special +"idle" one. In other words, from the CPU scheduler perspective, the only user +of the CPU time on them is the idle loop. Since the time of an idle CPU need +not be shared between multiple runnable tasks, the primary reason for using the +tick goes away if the given CPU is idle. Consequently, it is possible to stop +the scheduler tick entirely on idle CPUs in principle, even though that may not +always be worth the effort. + +Whether or not it makes sense to stop the scheduler tick in the idle loop +depends on what is expected by the governor. First, if there is another +(non-tick) timer due to trigger within the tick range, stopping the tick clearly +would be a waste of time, even though the timer hardware may not need to be +reprogrammed in that case. Second, if the governor is expecting a non-timer +wakeup within the tick range, stopping the tick is not necessary and it may even +be harmful. Namely, in that case the governor will select an idle state with +the target residency within the time until the expected wakeup, so that state is +going to be relatively shallow. The governor really cannot select a deep idle +state then, as that would contradict its own expectation of a wakeup in short +order. Now, if the wakeup really occurs shortly, stopping the tick would be a +waste of time and in this case the timer hardware would need to be reprogrammed, +which is expensive. On the other hand, if the tick is stopped and the wakeup +does not occur any time soon, the hardware may spend indefinite amount of time +in the shallow idle state selected by the governor, which will be a waste of +energy. Hence, if the governor is expecting a wakeup of any kind within the +tick range, it is better to allow the tick trigger. Otherwise, however, the +governor will select a relatively deep idle state, so the tick should be stopped +so that it does not wake up the CPU too early. + +In any case, the governor knows what it is expecting and the decision on whether +or not to stop the scheduler tick belongs to it. Still, if the tick has been +stopped already (in one of the previous iterations of the loop), it is better +to leave it as is and the governor needs to take that into account. + +The kernel can be configured to disable stopping the scheduler tick in the idle +loop altogether. That can be done through the build-time configuration of it +(by unsetting the ``CONFIG_NO_HZ_IDLE`` configuration option) or by passing +``nohz=off`` to it in the command line. In both cases, as the stopping of the +scheduler tick is disabled, the governor's decisions regarding it are simply +ignored by the idle loop code and the tick is never stopped. + +The systems that run kernels configured to allow the scheduler tick to be +stopped on idle CPUs are referred to as *tickless* systems and they are +generally regarded as more energy-efficient than the systems running kernels in +which the tick cannot be stopped. If the given system is tickless, it will use +the ``menu`` governor by default and if it is not tickless, the default +``CPUIdle`` governor on it will be ``ladder``. + + +.. _menu-gov: + +The ``menu`` Governor +===================== + +The ``menu`` governor is the default ``CPUIdle`` governor for tickless systems. +It is quite complex, but the basic principle of its design is straightforward. +Namely, when invoked to select an idle state for a CPU (i.e. an idle state that +the CPU will ask the processor hardware to enter), it attempts to predict the +idle duration and uses the predicted value for idle state selection. + +It first obtains the time until the closest timer event with the assumption +that the scheduler tick will be stopped. That time, referred to as the *sleep +length* in what follows, is the upper bound on the time before the next CPU +wakeup. It is used to determine the sleep length range, which in turn is needed +to get the sleep length correction factor. + +The ``menu`` governor maintains two arrays of sleep length correction factors. +One of them is used when tasks previously running on the given CPU are waiting +for some I/O operations to complete and the other one is used when that is not +the case. Each array contains several correction factor values that correspond +to different sleep length ranges organized so that each range represented in the +array is approximately 10 times wider than the previous one. + +The correction factor for the given sleep length range (determined before +selecting the idle state for the CPU) is updated after the CPU has been woken +up and the closer the sleep length is to the observed idle duration, the closer +to 1 the correction factor becomes (it must fall between 0 and 1 inclusive). +The sleep length is multiplied by the correction factor for the range that it +falls into to obtain the first approximation of the predicted idle duration. + +Next, the governor uses a simple pattern recognition algorithm to refine its +idle duration prediction. Namely, it saves the last 8 observed idle duration +values and, when predicting the idle duration next time, it computes the average +and variance of them. If the variance is small (smaller than 400 square +milliseconds) or it is small relative to the average (the average is greater +that 6 times the standard deviation), the average is regarded as the "typical +interval" value. Otherwise, the longest of the saved observed idle duration +values is discarded and the computation is repeated for the remaining ones. +Again, if the variance of them is small (in the above sense), the average is +taken as the "typical interval" value and so on, until either the "typical +interval" is determined or too many data points are disregarded, in which case +the "typical interval" is assumed to equal "infinity" (the maximum unsigned +integer value). The "typical interval" computed this way is compared with the +sleep length multiplied by the correction factor and the minimum of the two is +taken as the predicted idle duration. + +Then, the governor computes an extra latency limit to help "interactive" +workloads. It uses the observation that if the exit latency of the selected +idle state is comparable with the predicted idle duration, the total time spent +in that state probably will be very short and the amount of energy to save by +entering it will be relatively small, so likely it is better to avoid the +overhead related to entering that state and exiting it. Thus selecting a +shallower state is likely to be a better option then. The first approximation +of the extra latency limit is the predicted idle duration itself which +additionally is divided by a value depending on the number of tasks that +previously ran on the given CPU and now they are waiting for I/O operations to +complete. The result of that division is compared with the latency limit coming +from the power management quality of service, or `PM QoS <cpu-pm-qos_>`_, +framework and the minimum of the two is taken as the limit for the idle states' +exit latency. + +Now, the governor is ready to walk the list of idle states and choose one of +them. For this purpose, it compares the target residency of each state with +the predicted idle duration and the exit latency of it with the computed latency +limit. It selects the state with the target residency closest to the predicted +idle duration, but still below it, and exit latency that does not exceed the +limit. + +In the final step the governor may still need to refine the idle state selection +if it has not decided to `stop the scheduler tick <idle-cpus-and-tick_>`_. That +happens if the idle duration predicted by it is less than the tick period and +the tick has not been stopped already (in a previous iteration of the idle +loop). Then, the sleep length used in the previous computations may not reflect +the real time until the closest timer event and if it really is greater than +that time, the governor may need to select a shallower state with a suitable +target residency. + + +.. _teo-gov: + +The Timer Events Oriented (TEO) Governor +======================================== + +The timer events oriented (TEO) governor is an alternative ``CPUIdle`` governor +for tickless systems. It follows the same basic strategy as the ``menu`` `one +<menu-gov_>`_: it always tries to find the deepest idle state suitable for the +given conditions. However, it applies a different approach to that problem. + +First, it does not use sleep length correction factors, but instead it attempts +to correlate the observed idle duration values with the available idle states +and use that information to pick up the idle state that is most likely to +"match" the upcoming CPU idle interval. Second, it does not take the tasks +that were running on the given CPU in the past and are waiting on some I/O +operations to complete now at all (there is no guarantee that they will run on +the same CPU when they become runnable again) and the pattern detection code in +it avoids taking timer wakeups into account. It also only uses idle duration +values less than the current time till the closest timer (with the scheduler +tick excluded) for that purpose. + +Like in the ``menu`` governor `case <menu-gov_>`_, the first step is to obtain +the *sleep length*, which is the time until the closest timer event with the +assumption that the scheduler tick will be stopped (that also is the upper bound +on the time until the next CPU wakeup). That value is then used to preselect an +idle state on the basis of three metrics maintained for each idle state provided +by the ``CPUIdle`` driver: ``hits``, ``misses`` and ``early_hits``. + +The ``hits`` and ``misses`` metrics measure the likelihood that a given idle +state will "match" the observed (post-wakeup) idle duration if it "matches" the +sleep length. They both are subject to decay (after a CPU wakeup) every time +the target residency of the idle state corresponding to them is less than or +equal to the sleep length and the target residency of the next idle state is +greater than the sleep length (that is, when the idle state corresponding to +them "matches" the sleep length). The ``hits`` metric is increased if the +former condition is satisfied and the target residency of the given idle state +is less than or equal to the observed idle duration and the target residency of +the next idle state is greater than the observed idle duration at the same time +(that is, it is increased when the given idle state "matches" both the sleep +length and the observed idle duration). In turn, the ``misses`` metric is +increased when the given idle state "matches" the sleep length only and the +observed idle duration is too short for its target residency. + +The ``early_hits`` metric measures the likelihood that a given idle state will +"match" the observed (post-wakeup) idle duration if it does not "match" the +sleep length. It is subject to decay on every CPU wakeup and it is increased +when the idle state corresponding to it "matches" the observed (post-wakeup) +idle duration and the target residency of the next idle state is less than or +equal to the sleep length (i.e. the idle state "matching" the sleep length is +deeper than the given one). + +The governor walks the list of idle states provided by the ``CPUIdle`` driver +and finds the last (deepest) one with the target residency less than or equal +to the sleep length. Then, the ``hits`` and ``misses`` metrics of that idle +state are compared with each other and it is preselected if the ``hits`` one is +greater (which means that that idle state is likely to "match" the observed idle +duration after CPU wakeup). If the ``misses`` one is greater, the governor +preselects the shallower idle state with the maximum ``early_hits`` metric +(or if there are multiple shallower idle states with equal ``early_hits`` +metric which also is the maximum, the shallowest of them will be preselected). +[If there is a wakeup latency constraint coming from the `PM QoS framework +<cpu-pm-qos_>`_ which is hit before reaching the deepest idle state with the +target residency within the sleep length, the deepest idle state with the exit +latency within the constraint is preselected without consulting the ``hits``, +``misses`` and ``early_hits`` metrics.] + +Next, the governor takes several idle duration values observed most recently +into consideration and if at least a half of them are greater than or equal to +the target residency of the preselected idle state, that idle state becomes the +final candidate to ask for. Otherwise, the average of the most recent idle +duration values below the target residency of the preselected idle state is +computed and the governor walks the idle states shallower than the preselected +one and finds the deepest of them with the target residency within that average. +That idle state is then taken as the final candidate to ask for. + +Still, at this point the governor may need to refine the idle state selection if +it has not decided to `stop the scheduler tick <idle-cpus-and-tick_>`_. That +generally happens if the target residency of the idle state selected so far is +less than the tick period and the tick has not been stopped already (in a +previous iteration of the idle loop). Then, like in the ``menu`` governor +`case <menu-gov_>`_, the sleep length used in the previous computations may not +reflect the real time until the closest timer event and if it really is greater +than that time, a shallower state with a suitable target residency may need to +be selected. + + +.. _idle-states-representation: + +Representation of Idle States +============================= + +For the CPU idle time management purposes all of the physical idle states +supported by the processor have to be represented as a one-dimensional array of +|struct cpuidle_state| objects each allowing an individual (logical) CPU to ask +the processor hardware to enter an idle state of certain properties. If there +is a hierarchy of units in the processor, one |struct cpuidle_state| object can +cover a combination of idle states supported by the units at different levels of +the hierarchy. In that case, the `target residency and exit latency parameters +of it <idle-loop_>`_, must reflect the properties of the idle state at the +deepest level (i.e. the idle state of the unit containing all of the other +units). + +For example, take a processor with two cores in a larger unit referred to as +a "module" and suppose that asking the hardware to enter a specific idle state +(say "X") at the "core" level by one core will trigger the module to try to +enter a specific idle state of its own (say "MX") if the other core is in idle +state "X" already. In other words, asking for idle state "X" at the "core" +level gives the hardware a license to go as deep as to idle state "MX" at the +"module" level, but there is no guarantee that this is going to happen (the core +asking for idle state "X" may just end up in that state by itself instead). +Then, the target residency of the |struct cpuidle_state| object representing +idle state "X" must reflect the minimum time to spend in idle state "MX" of +the module (including the time needed to enter it), because that is the minimum +time the CPU needs to be idle to save any energy in case the hardware enters +that state. Analogously, the exit latency parameter of that object must cover +the exit time of idle state "MX" of the module (and usually its entry time too), +because that is the maximum delay between a wakeup signal and the time the CPU +will start to execute the first new instruction (assuming that both cores in the +module will always be ready to execute instructions as soon as the module +becomes operational as a whole). + +There are processors without direct coordination between different levels of the +hierarchy of units inside them, however. In those cases asking for an idle +state at the "core" level does not automatically affect the "module" level, for +example, in any way and the ``CPUIdle`` driver is responsible for the entire +handling of the hierarchy. Then, the definition of the idle state objects is +entirely up to the driver, but still the physical properties of the idle state +that the processor hardware finally goes into must always follow the parameters +used by the governor for idle state selection (for instance, the actual exit +latency of that idle state must not exceed the exit latency parameter of the +idle state object selected by the governor). + +In addition to the target residency and exit latency idle state parameters +discussed above, the objects representing idle states each contain a few other +parameters describing the idle state and a pointer to the function to run in +order to ask the hardware to enter that state. Also, for each +|struct cpuidle_state| object, there is a corresponding +:c:type:`struct cpuidle_state_usage <cpuidle_state_usage>` one containing usage +statistics of the given idle state. That information is exposed by the kernel +via ``sysfs``. + +For each CPU in the system, there is a :file:`/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu<N>/cpuidle/` +directory in ``sysfs``, where the number ``<N>`` is assigned to the given +CPU at the initialization time. That directory contains a set of subdirectories +called :file:`state0`, :file:`state1` and so on, up to the number of idle state +objects defined for the given CPU minus one. Each of these directories +corresponds to one idle state object and the larger the number in its name, the +deeper the (effective) idle state represented by it. Each of them contains +a number of files (attributes) representing the properties of the idle state +object corresponding to it, as follows: + +``above`` + Total number of times this idle state had been asked for, but the + observed idle duration was certainly too short to match its target + residency. + +``below`` + Total number of times this idle state had been asked for, but certainly + a deeper idle state would have been a better match for the observed idle + duration. + +``desc`` + Description of the idle state. + +``disable`` + Whether or not this idle state is disabled. + +``default_status`` + The default status of this state, "enabled" or "disabled". + +``latency`` + Exit latency of the idle state in microseconds. + +``name`` + Name of the idle state. + +``power`` + Power drawn by hardware in this idle state in milliwatts (if specified, + 0 otherwise). + +``residency`` + Target residency of the idle state in microseconds. + +``time`` + Total time spent in this idle state by the given CPU (as measured by the + kernel) in microseconds. + +``usage`` + Total number of times the hardware has been asked by the given CPU to + enter this idle state. + +``rejected`` + Total number of times a request to enter this idle state on the given + CPU was rejected. + +The :file:`desc` and :file:`name` files both contain strings. The difference +between them is that the name is expected to be more concise, while the +description may be longer and it may contain white space or special characters. +The other files listed above contain integer numbers. + +The :file:`disable` attribute is the only writeable one. If it contains 1, the +given idle state is disabled for this particular CPU, which means that the +governor will never select it for this particular CPU and the ``CPUIdle`` +driver will never ask the hardware to enter it for that CPU as a result. +However, disabling an idle state for one CPU does not prevent it from being +asked for by the other CPUs, so it must be disabled for all of them in order to +never be asked for by any of them. [Note that, due to the way the ``ladder`` +governor is implemented, disabling an idle state prevents that governor from +selecting any idle states deeper than the disabled one too.] + +If the :file:`disable` attribute contains 0, the given idle state is enabled for +this particular CPU, but it still may be disabled for some or all of the other +CPUs in the system at the same time. Writing 1 to it causes the idle state to +be disabled for this particular CPU and writing 0 to it allows the governor to +take it into consideration for the given CPU and the driver to ask for it, +unless that state was disabled globally in the driver (in which case it cannot +be used at all). + +The :file:`power` attribute is not defined very well, especially for idle state +objects representing combinations of idle states at different levels of the +hierarchy of units in the processor, and it generally is hard to obtain idle +state power numbers for complex hardware, so :file:`power` often contains 0 (not +available) and if it contains a nonzero number, that number may not be very +accurate and it should not be relied on for anything meaningful. + +The number in the :file:`time` file generally may be greater than the total time +really spent by the given CPU in the given idle state, because it is measured by +the kernel and it may not cover the cases in which the hardware refused to enter +this idle state and entered a shallower one instead of it (or even it did not +enter any idle state at all). The kernel can only measure the time span between +asking the hardware to enter an idle state and the subsequent wakeup of the CPU +and it cannot say what really happened in the meantime at the hardware level. +Moreover, if the idle state object in question represents a combination of idle +states at different levels of the hierarchy of units in the processor, +the kernel can never say how deep the hardware went down the hierarchy in any +particular case. For these reasons, the only reliable way to find out how +much time has been spent by the hardware in different idle states supported by +it is to use idle state residency counters in the hardware, if available. + +Generally, an interrupt received when trying to enter an idle state causes the +idle state entry request to be rejected, in which case the ``CPUIdle`` driver +may return an error code to indicate that this was the case. The :file:`usage` +and :file:`rejected` files report the number of times the given idle state +was entered successfully or rejected, respectively. + +.. _cpu-pm-qos: + +Power Management Quality of Service for CPUs +============================================ + +The power management quality of service (PM QoS) framework in the Linux kernel +allows kernel code and user space processes to set constraints on various +energy-efficiency features of the kernel to prevent performance from dropping +below a required level. + +CPU idle time management can be affected by PM QoS in two ways, through the +global CPU latency limit and through the resume latency constraints for +individual CPUs. Kernel code (e.g. device drivers) can set both of them with +the help of special internal interfaces provided by the PM QoS framework. User +space can modify the former by opening the :file:`cpu_dma_latency` special +device file under :file:`/dev/` and writing a binary value (interpreted as a +signed 32-bit integer) to it. In turn, the resume latency constraint for a CPU +can be modified from user space by writing a string (representing a signed +32-bit integer) to the :file:`power/pm_qos_resume_latency_us` file under +:file:`/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu<N>/` in ``sysfs``, where the CPU number +``<N>`` is allocated at the system initialization time. Negative values +will be rejected in both cases and, also in both cases, the written integer +number will be interpreted as a requested PM QoS constraint in microseconds. + +The requested value is not automatically applied as a new constraint, however, +as it may be less restrictive (greater in this particular case) than another +constraint previously requested by someone else. For this reason, the PM QoS +framework maintains a list of requests that have been made so far for the +global CPU latency limit and for each individual CPU, aggregates them and +applies the effective (minimum in this particular case) value as the new +constraint. + +In fact, opening the :file:`cpu_dma_latency` special device file causes a new +PM QoS request to be created and added to a global priority list of CPU latency +limit requests and the file descriptor coming from the "open" operation +represents that request. If that file descriptor is then used for writing, the +number written to it will be associated with the PM QoS request represented by +it as a new requested limit value. Next, the priority list mechanism will be +used to determine the new effective value of the entire list of requests and +that effective value will be set as a new CPU latency limit. Thus requesting a +new limit value will only change the real limit if the effective "list" value is +affected by it, which is the case if it is the minimum of the requested values +in the list. + +The process holding a file descriptor obtained by opening the +:file:`cpu_dma_latency` special device file controls the PM QoS request +associated with that file descriptor, but it controls this particular PM QoS +request only. + +Closing the :file:`cpu_dma_latency` special device file or, more precisely, the +file descriptor obtained while opening it, causes the PM QoS request associated +with that file descriptor to be removed from the global priority list of CPU +latency limit requests and destroyed. If that happens, the priority list +mechanism will be used again, to determine the new effective value for the whole +list and that value will become the new limit. + +In turn, for each CPU there is one resume latency PM QoS request associated with +the :file:`power/pm_qos_resume_latency_us` file under +:file:`/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu<N>/` in ``sysfs`` and writing to it causes +this single PM QoS request to be updated regardless of which user space +process does that. In other words, this PM QoS request is shared by the entire +user space, so access to the file associated with it needs to be arbitrated +to avoid confusion. [Arguably, the only legitimate use of this mechanism in +practice is to pin a process to the CPU in question and let it use the +``sysfs`` interface to control the resume latency constraint for it.] It is +still only a request, however. It is an entry in a priority list used to +determine the effective value to be set as the resume latency constraint for the +CPU in question every time the list of requests is updated this way or another +(there may be other requests coming from kernel code in that list). + +CPU idle time governors are expected to regard the minimum of the global +(effective) CPU latency limit and the effective resume latency constraint for +the given CPU as the upper limit for the exit latency of the idle states that +they are allowed to select for that CPU. They should never select any idle +states with exit latency beyond that limit. + + +Idle States Control Via Kernel Command Line +=========================================== + +In addition to the ``sysfs`` interface allowing individual idle states to be +`disabled for individual CPUs <idle-states-representation_>`_, there are kernel +command line parameters affecting CPU idle time management. + +The ``cpuidle.off=1`` kernel command line option can be used to disable the +CPU idle time management entirely. It does not prevent the idle loop from +running on idle CPUs, but it prevents the CPU idle time governors and drivers +from being invoked. If it is added to the kernel command line, the idle loop +will ask the hardware to enter idle states on idle CPUs via the CPU architecture +support code that is expected to provide a default mechanism for this purpose. +That default mechanism usually is the least common denominator for all of the +processors implementing the architecture (i.e. CPU instruction set) in question, +however, so it is rather crude and not very energy-efficient. For this reason, +it is not recommended for production use. + +The ``cpuidle.governor=`` kernel command line switch allows the ``CPUIdle`` +governor to use to be specified. It has to be appended with a string matching +the name of an available governor (e.g. ``cpuidle.governor=menu``) and that +governor will be used instead of the default one. It is possible to force +the ``menu`` governor to be used on the systems that use the ``ladder`` governor +by default this way, for example. + +The other kernel command line parameters controlling CPU idle time management +described below are only relevant for the *x86* architecture and references +to ``intel_idle`` affect Intel processors only. + +The *x86* architecture support code recognizes three kernel command line +options related to CPU idle time management: ``idle=poll``, ``idle=halt``, +and ``idle=nomwait``. The first two of them disable the ``acpi_idle`` and +``intel_idle`` drivers altogether, which effectively causes the entire +``CPUIdle`` subsystem to be disabled and makes the idle loop invoke the +architecture support code to deal with idle CPUs. How it does that depends on +which of the two parameters is added to the kernel command line. In the +``idle=halt`` case, the architecture support code will use the ``HLT`` +instruction of the CPUs (which, as a rule, suspends the execution of the program +and causes the hardware to attempt to enter the shallowest available idle state) +for this purpose, and if ``idle=poll`` is used, idle CPUs will execute a +more or less "lightweight" sequence of instructions in a tight loop. [Note +that using ``idle=poll`` is somewhat drastic in many cases, as preventing idle +CPUs from saving almost any energy at all may not be the only effect of it. +For example, on Intel hardware it effectively prevents CPUs from using +P-states (see |cpufreq|) that require any number of CPUs in a package to be +idle, so it very well may hurt single-thread computations performance as well as +energy-efficiency. Thus using it for performance reasons may not be a good idea +at all.] + +The ``idle=nomwait`` option prevents the use of ``MWAIT`` instruction of +the CPU to enter idle states. When this option is used, the ``acpi_idle`` +driver will use the ``HLT`` instruction instead of ``MWAIT``. On systems +running Intel processors, this option disables the ``intel_idle`` driver +and forces the use of the ``acpi_idle`` driver instead. Note that in either +case, ``acpi_idle`` driver will function only if all the information needed +by it is in the system's ACPI tables. + +In addition to the architecture-level kernel command line options affecting CPU +idle time management, there are parameters affecting individual ``CPUIdle`` +drivers that can be passed to them via the kernel command line. Specifically, +the ``intel_idle.max_cstate=<n>`` and ``processor.max_cstate=<n>`` parameters, +where ``<n>`` is an idle state index also used in the name of the given +state's directory in ``sysfs`` (see +`Representation of Idle States <idle-states-representation_>`_), causes the +``intel_idle`` and ``acpi_idle`` drivers, respectively, to discard all of the +idle states deeper than idle state ``<n>``. In that case, they will never ask +for any of those idle states or expose them to the governor. [The behavior of +the two drivers is different for ``<n>`` equal to ``0``. Adding +``intel_idle.max_cstate=0`` to the kernel command line disables the +``intel_idle`` driver and allows ``acpi_idle`` to be used, whereas +``processor.max_cstate=0`` is equivalent to ``processor.max_cstate=1``. +Also, the ``acpi_idle`` driver is part of the ``processor`` kernel module that +can be loaded separately and ``max_cstate=<n>`` can be passed to it as a module +parameter when it is loaded.] |