Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2019 16:04:51 -0600 From: "Constantine A. Murenin" <cnst++@freebsd.org> To: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: Philip Paeps <philip@freebsd.org>, "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>, "Constantine A. Murenin" <cnst++@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: What value HZ? Message-ID: <CAPKkNb4ETFzD7pXi3=iDUxtSxZSffxFB5q9ZtmsJy2FUuaZB5A@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CANCZdfqbp%2BU3=0EM2n3bhg4DwXd_PVjvEYjGyQhkE5-MK-3-QA@mail.gmail.com> References: <201909060119.x861JWrG006910@repo.freebsd.org> <4917d7507b6ea6c360dccda261f53052aa085f2b.camel@freebsd.org> <5EE266EE-E650-48D8-9B0E-E674AD026470@freebsd.org> <3cb6429acc7e520932d2c906d1cac47540156355.camel@freebsd.org> <8F03EA29-0F3F-4321-9241-78F7C924FDE1@freebsd.org> <CANCZdfr6pz19NCLmsua6iGzusotrcHN=u47RH7Y1PdM4rnomZA@mail.gmail.com> <9BC03B61-F8B5-476C-AD34-9DEA5230BFCF@freebsd.org> <CANCZdfqbp%2BU3=0EM2n3bhg4DwXd_PVjvEYjGyQhkE5-MK-3-QA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
For the sake of discussion, I recall that there was a measurable power consumption difference between FreeBSD (HZ=1000) and OpenBSD (HZ=100) when I played with a Kill-A-Watt a number of years ago. Would it perhaps be prudent to try to qualify whether, and by how much, this change affects power consumption on MIPS/ARM/RISCV, not just whether each arch could cope with the change? P.S. For folks who skipped the original message, this doesn't necessarily change HZ for actual builds, as many individual conf files already define it at 1000. http://bxr.su/f/s?q=%22options+HZ%3D1000%22 Cheers, Constantine.SU. On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 at 22:46, Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote: > I'm top posting here, since this thread from a recent commit gives the > context > > I'm proposing basically the following patch: > > diff --git a/sys/kern/subr_param.c b/sys/kern/subr_param.c > index c0025c07eed..bb92afb6449 100644 > --- a/sys/kern/subr_param.c > +++ b/sys/kern/subr_param.c > @@ -61,11 +61,7 @@ __FBSDID("$FreeBSD$"); > */ > > #ifndef HZ > -# if defined(__mips__) || defined(__arm__) || defined(__riscv) > -# define HZ 100 > -# else > -# define HZ 1000 > -# endif > +# define HZ 1000 > # ifndef HZ_VM > # define HZ_VM 100 > # endif > > Along with removing HZ from almost all the kernel config files in arm and > mips where it is already 1000. I'm agnostic about riscv, so would also be > open to just removing the first two clauses from the #if the diff shows me > removing. > > So on arm, only some of the armv5 ports have a HZ of 100: DB-78XX, > DB-88F6XXX (but not DB-88F5XXX), DOCKSTAR, DREAMPLUG (but not SHEVAPLUG) > and RT1310. All the armv6 and armv7 have HZ=1000. Since armv5 is slated to > go away before 13 branches, we should just change it now. All the marvell > parts likely should be able to cope with 1000HZ anyway, and only the RT1310 > is slow enough to maybe need HZ=100. I can't say for sure, though, since I > can't get mine to work. armv[67] is 99%+ of the current install base, due > to FreeBSD's need for more memory than most of the old *PLUG computers have > anyway. So the case for arm seems fairly straight forward: bump it to 1000 > and maybe add an option line for RT1310. > > For mips, the situation is similar. All the atheros boards run at 1000Hz. > BERI is the only one that sets something specific (either 100 or 200) and > can remain. The JZ4780 stuff uses the default of 100Hz, and likely is in > the range of machines that's neither helped nor hurt by 1000HZ. MALTA* > also uses the default of 100HZ, but it's 100% emulation these days (or near > enough) that we should likely keep it there. The Mediatek stuff also uses > the default of 100HZ. It's more likely to benefit from 1000HZ, than JZ4780, > but not by much. The XLP stuff is 1000HZ. Octeon is 100HZ, but is plenty > fast for 1000HZ and likely would benefit from the change. So the proposal > for that lot is to change to 1000HZ, leave BERI as is, at HZ=100 to MALTA* > and let the rest tick over to 1000HZ by default. Should any problems arise, > we can bump those back down to something more sane. I suspect changing to > 1000 won't matter at all given the current mix of systems that are > supported, with the possible exception of MALTA* (I'll defer to more recent > users of that, though, since it has been a while for me). > > For riscv, which kicked all this off, I'd be inclined to leave it at 1000. > But I don't know that market segment well enough to have an educated > opinion. > > Comments? > > Warner > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 10:23 PM Philip Paeps <philip@freebsd.org> wrote: > > > On 2019-09-07 12:06:32 (+0800), Warner Losh wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 9:54 PM Philip Paeps <philip@freebsd.org> > > > wrote: > > >> On 2019-09-06 22:18:36 (+0800), Ian Lepore wrote: > > >>> On Fri, 2019-09-06 at 12:15 +0800, Philip Paeps wrote: > > >>>> On 2019-09-06 11:15:12 (+0800), Ian Lepore wrote: > > >>>>> On Fri, 2019-09-06 at 01:19 +0000, Philip Paeps wrote: > > >>>>>> Log: > > >>>>>> riscv: default to HZ=100 > > >>>>> > > >>>>> This seems like a bad idea. I've run a 90mhz armv4 chip with > > >>>>> HZ=1000 and didn't notice any performance hit from doing so. > > >>>>> Almost all arm kernel config files set HZ as an option, so that > > >>>>> define doesn't do much for arm these days. It probably does still > > >>>>> set HZ for various mips platforms. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> I would think 1000 is appropriate for anything modern running at > > >>>>> 200mhz or more. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Setting it to 100 has the bad side effect of making things like > > >>>>> msleep(), tsleep(), and pause() (which show up in plenty of > > >>>>> drivers) all have a minimum timeout of 10ms, which is a long long > > >>>>> time on modern hardware. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> What benefit do you think you'll get from the lower number? > > >>>> > > >>>> On systems running at 10s of MHz (or slower, ick), with HZ=1000 you > > >>>> spend an awful lot of time servicing the timer interrupt and not > > >>>> very much time doing anything else. > > >>>> > > >>>> My rationale was that most RISC-V systems (including emulation and > > >>>> FPGA prototypes) I've encountered are running slower than the > > >>>> tipping point where HZ=1000 makes sense. With the default of > > >>>> HZ=100, faster exceptions can still set HZ=1000 in their individual > > >>>> configs. > > >>>> > > >>>> When the RISC-V world evolves to having more actual silicon and > > >>>> fewer slow prototypes, I definitely agree this default should be > > >>>> flipped again for HZ=1000 by default and HZ=100 in the config files > > >>>> for the exceptions. > > >>> > > >>> Wait a second... are you saying that the riscv implementation > > >>> doesn't support event timers and uses an old-style periodic tick > > >>> based on HZ? > > >> > > >> Depending on the hardware, there may not be an event timer (yet)... > > >> > > >> As I wrote: I would be more than happy to revert this change when > > >> more silicon becomes available. Presently, there is exactly one > > >> silicon RISC-V implementation commercially available (HiFive FU540) > > >> and even that one is kind of difficult to source. Most people > > >> running RISC-V are doing so in emulation or on FPGAs. > > >> > > >> Given how long these things take to boot to userland (where you > > >> really notice how slow things are), HZ=100 feels like a more sensible > > >> default than HZ=1000. > > > > > > I think it show more that the defaults are bad for MIPS and ARM. All > > > the MIPS files, except BERI/CHERI are 1000Hz. Well, Octeon is also > > > 100Hz, due to the defaults, but it will be fine at 1000Hz, so maybe we > > > need to attend to this as well. Arm !=v5 is also 1000Hz, so it should > > > be changed... > > > > > >> I don't feel terribly strongly about this though. I've just been > > >> bitten several times in the last week on a <15MHz FPGA forgetting to > > >> set HZ=100 in config and figured I'd save others the trouble. ;-) > > > > > > 15MHz FPGA? FreeBSD 1.0 barely ran on 25MHz i386 machines of the > > > time.... How common are these beasts and how well does FreeBSD do on > > > them. I assume these are early prototypes? > > > > These are early prototypes indeed. > > > > FreeBSD runs remarkably well on them. Slowly of course. Booting takes > > several minutes and running anything non-trivial can be frustrating. > > > > > I have no strong opinion on riscv, but do think mips and arm should > > > change. > > > > I will revert r351918 and r351919 since there is clearly no consensus. > > > > Let's take this discussion to arch@? > > > > Philip > > > > -- > > Philip Paeps > > Senior Reality Engineer > > Alternative Enterprises > > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-arch@freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arch-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAPKkNb4ETFzD7pXi3=iDUxtSxZSffxFB5q9ZtmsJy2FUuaZB5A>