[PATCH 0/2] introduce PM QoS interface

[lihuisong (C)]

+Tyler, +Alan, +Wei, +Long for asking this similar feature on Windows.

在 2024/3/21 21:30, Morten Brørup 写道:
>> From: lihuisong (C) [mailto:lihuisong at huawei.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, 21 March 2024 04.04
>>
>> Hi Moren,
>>
>> Thanks for your revew.
>>
>> 在 2024/3/20 22:05, Morten Brørup 写道:
>>>> From: Huisong Li [mailto:lihuisong at huawei.com]
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, 20 March 2024 11.55
>>>>
>>>> The system-wide CPU latency QoS limit has a positive impact on the idle
>>>> state selection in cpuidle governor.
>>>>
>>>> Linux creates a cpu_dma_latency device under '/dev' directory to obtain the
>>>> CPU latency QoS limit on system and send the QoS request for userspace.
>>>> Please see the PM QoS framework in the following link:
>>>> https://docs.kernel.org/power/pm_qos_interface.html?highlight=qos
>>>> This feature is supported by kernel-v2.6.25.
>>>>
>>>> The deeper the idle state, the lower the power consumption, but the longer
>>>> the resume time. Some service are delay sensitive and very except the low
>>>> resume time, like interrupt packet receiving mode.
>>>>
>>>> So this series introduce PM QoS interface.
>>> This looks like a 1:1 wrapper for a Linux kernel feature.
>> right
>>> Does Windows or BSD offer something similar?
>> How do we know Windows or BSD support this similar feature?
> Ask Windows experts or research using Google.
I download freebsd source code, I didn't find this similar feature.
They don't even support cpuidle feature(this QoS feature affects cpuilde.).
I don't find any useful about this on Windows from google.


@Tyler, @Alan, @Wei and @Long

Do you know windows support that userspace read and send CPU latency 
which has an impact on deep level of CPU idle?

>> The DPDK power lib just work on Linux according to the meson.build under
>> lib/power.
>> If they support this features, they can open it.
> The DPDK power lib currently only works on Linux, yes.
> But its API should still be designed to be platform agnostic, so the functions can be implemented on other platforms in the future.
>
> DPDK is on track to work across multiple platforms, including Windows.
> We must always consider other platforms, and not design DPDK APIs as if they are for Linux/BSD only.
totally understand you.
>
>>> Furthermore, any high-res timing should use nanoseconds, not microseconds or
>> milliseconds.
>>> I realize that the Linux kernel only uses microseconds for these APIs, but
>> the DPDK API should use nanoseconds.
>> Nanoseconds is more precise, it's good.
>> But DPDK API how use nanoseconds as you said the the Linux kernel only
>> uses microseconds for these APIs.
>> Kernel interface just know an integer value with microseconds unit.
> One solution is to expose nanoseconds in the DPDK API, and in the Linux specific implementation convert from/to microseconds.
If so, we have to modify the implementation interface on Linux. This 
change the input/output unit about the interface.
And DPDK also has to do this based on kernel version. It is not good.
The cpuidle governor select which idle state based on the worst-case 
latency of idle state.
These the worst-case latency of Cstate reported by ACPI table is in 
microseconds as the section 8.4.1.1. _CST (C States) and 8.4.3.3. _LPI 
(Low Power Idle States) in ACPI spec [1].
So it is probably not meaning to change this interface implementation.

For the case need PM QoS in DPDK, I think, it is better to set cpu 
latency to zero to prevent service thread from the deeper the idle state.
> You might also want to add a note to the in-line documentation of the relevant functions that the Linux implementation only uses microsecond resolution.
>
[1] 
https://uefi.org/specs/ACPI/6.5/08_Processor_Configuration_and_Control.html