mirror of https://github.com/Qortal/Brooklyn
You can not select more than 25 topics
Topics must start with a letter or number, can include dashes ('-') and can be up to 35 characters long.
199 lines
7.1 KiB
199 lines
7.1 KiB
.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 |
|
|
|
================ |
|
CPU Idle Cooling |
|
================ |
|
|
|
Situation: |
|
---------- |
|
|
|
Under certain circumstances a SoC can reach a critical temperature |
|
limit and is unable to stabilize the temperature around a temperature |
|
control. When the SoC has to stabilize the temperature, the kernel can |
|
act on a cooling device to mitigate the dissipated power. When the |
|
critical temperature is reached, a decision must be taken to reduce |
|
the temperature, that, in turn impacts performance. |
|
|
|
Another situation is when the silicon temperature continues to |
|
increase even after the dynamic leakage is reduced to its minimum by |
|
clock gating the component. This runaway phenomenon can continue due |
|
to the static leakage. The only solution is to power down the |
|
component, thus dropping the dynamic and static leakage that will |
|
allow the component to cool down. |
|
|
|
Last but not least, the system can ask for a specific power budget but |
|
because of the OPP density, we can only choose an OPP with a power |
|
budget lower than the requested one and under-utilize the CPU, thus |
|
losing performance. In other words, one OPP under-utilizes the CPU |
|
with a power less than the requested power budget and the next OPP |
|
exceeds the power budget. An intermediate OPP could have been used if |
|
it were present. |
|
|
|
Solutions: |
|
---------- |
|
|
|
If we can remove the static and the dynamic leakage for a specific |
|
duration in a controlled period, the SoC temperature will |
|
decrease. Acting on the idle state duration or the idle cycle |
|
injection period, we can mitigate the temperature by modulating the |
|
power budget. |
|
|
|
The Operating Performance Point (OPP) density has a great influence on |
|
the control precision of cpufreq, however different vendors have a |
|
plethora of OPP density, and some have large power gap between OPPs, |
|
that will result in loss of performance during thermal control and |
|
loss of power in other scenarios. |
|
|
|
At a specific OPP, we can assume that injecting idle cycle on all CPUs |
|
belong to the same cluster, with a duration greater than the cluster |
|
idle state target residency, we lead to dropping the static and the |
|
dynamic leakage for this period (modulo the energy needed to enter |
|
this state). So the sustainable power with idle cycles has a linear |
|
relation with the OPP’s sustainable power and can be computed with a |
|
coefficient similar to:: |
|
|
|
Power(IdleCycle) = Coef x Power(OPP) |
|
|
|
Idle Injection: |
|
--------------- |
|
|
|
The base concept of the idle injection is to force the CPU to go to an |
|
idle state for a specified time each control cycle, it provides |
|
another way to control CPU power and heat in addition to |
|
cpufreq. Ideally, if all CPUs belonging to the same cluster, inject |
|
their idle cycles synchronously, the cluster can reach its power down |
|
state with a minimum power consumption and reduce the static leakage |
|
to almost zero. However, these idle cycles injection will add extra |
|
latencies as the CPUs will have to wakeup from a deep sleep state. |
|
|
|
We use a fixed duration of idle injection that gives an acceptable |
|
performance penalty and a fixed latency. Mitigation can be increased |
|
or decreased by modulating the duty cycle of the idle injection. |
|
|
|
:: |
|
|
|
^ |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|------- ------- |
|
|_______|_______________________|_______|___________ |
|
|
|
<------> |
|
idle <----------------------> |
|
running |
|
|
|
<-----------------------------> |
|
duty cycle 25% |
|
|
|
|
|
The implementation of the cooling device bases the number of states on |
|
the duty cycle percentage. When no mitigation is happening the cooling |
|
device state is zero, meaning the duty cycle is 0%. |
|
|
|
When the mitigation begins, depending on the governor's policy, a |
|
starting state is selected. With a fixed idle duration and the duty |
|
cycle (aka the cooling device state), the running duration can be |
|
computed. |
|
|
|
The governor will change the cooling device state thus the duty cycle |
|
and this variation will modulate the cooling effect. |
|
|
|
:: |
|
|
|
^ |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|------- ------- |
|
|_______|_______________|_______|___________ |
|
|
|
<------> |
|
idle <--------------> |
|
running |
|
|
|
<---------------------> |
|
duty cycle 33% |
|
|
|
|
|
^ |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|------- ------- |
|
|_______|_______|_______|___________ |
|
|
|
<------> |
|
idle <------> |
|
running |
|
|
|
<-------------> |
|
duty cycle 50% |
|
|
|
The idle injection duration value must comply with the constraints: |
|
|
|
- It is less than or equal to the latency we tolerate when the |
|
mitigation begins. It is platform dependent and will depend on the |
|
user experience, reactivity vs performance trade off we want. This |
|
value should be specified. |
|
|
|
- It is greater than the idle state’s target residency we want to go |
|
for thermal mitigation, otherwise we end up consuming more energy. |
|
|
|
Power considerations |
|
-------------------- |
|
|
|
When we reach the thermal trip point, we have to sustain a specified |
|
power for a specific temperature but at this time we consume:: |
|
|
|
Power = Capacitance x Voltage^2 x Frequency x Utilisation |
|
|
|
... which is more than the sustainable power (or there is something |
|
wrong in the system setup). The ‘Capacitance’ and ‘Utilisation’ are a |
|
fixed value, ‘Voltage’ and the ‘Frequency’ are fixed artificially |
|
because we don’t want to change the OPP. We can group the |
|
‘Capacitance’ and the ‘Utilisation’ into a single term which is the |
|
‘Dynamic Power Coefficient (Cdyn)’ Simplifying the above, we have:: |
|
|
|
Pdyn = Cdyn x Voltage^2 x Frequency |
|
|
|
The power allocator governor will ask us somehow to reduce our power |
|
in order to target the sustainable power defined in the device |
|
tree. So with the idle injection mechanism, we want an average power |
|
(Ptarget) resulting in an amount of time running at full power on a |
|
specific OPP and idle another amount of time. That could be put in a |
|
equation:: |
|
|
|
P(opp)target = ((Trunning x (P(opp)running) + (Tidle x P(opp)idle)) / |
|
(Trunning + Tidle) |
|
|
|
... |
|
|
|
Tidle = Trunning x ((P(opp)running / P(opp)target) - 1) |
|
|
|
At this point if we know the running period for the CPU, that gives us |
|
the idle injection we need. Alternatively if we have the idle |
|
injection duration, we can compute the running duration with:: |
|
|
|
Trunning = Tidle / ((P(opp)running / P(opp)target) - 1) |
|
|
|
Practically, if the running power is less than the targeted power, we |
|
end up with a negative time value, so obviously the equation usage is |
|
bound to a power reduction, hence a higher OPP is needed to have the |
|
running power greater than the targeted power. |
|
|
|
However, in this demonstration we ignore three aspects: |
|
|
|
* The static leakage is not defined here, we can introduce it in the |
|
equation but assuming it will be zero most of the time as it is |
|
difficult to get the values from the SoC vendors |
|
|
|
* The idle state wake up latency (or entry + exit latency) is not |
|
taken into account, it must be added in the equation in order to |
|
rigorously compute the idle injection |
|
|
|
* The injected idle duration must be greater than the idle state |
|
target residency, otherwise we end up consuming more energy and |
|
potentially invert the mitigation effect |
|
|
|
So the final equation is:: |
|
|
|
Trunning = (Tidle - Twakeup ) x |
|
(((P(opp)dyn + P(opp)static ) - P(opp)target) / P(opp)target )
|
|
|