| .. 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 ) |