From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix, from userid 118) id 44B84E006EF; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 12:04:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on yocto-www.yoctoproject.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-HAM-Report: * -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] * -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no * trust * [173.201.193.230 listed in list.dnswl.org] Received: from p3plsmtpa09-01.prod.phx3.secureserver.net (p3plsmtpa09-01.prod.phx3.secureserver.net [173.201.193.230]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0AFAE004A0 for ; Thu, 4 Sep 2014 12:04:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.65.10] ([66.41.60.82]) by p3plsmtpa09-01.prod.phx3.secureserver.net with id n74L1o00i1mTNtu0174MGH; Thu, 04 Sep 2014 12:04:22 -0700 Message-ID: <5408B7B4.9090504@pabigot.com> Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 14:04:20 -0500 From: "Peter A. Bigot" Organization: Peter Bigot Consulting, LLC User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Denys Dmytriyenko , Robert Nelson References: <20140904150022.GD18620@edge> <54088734.1090204@pabigot.com> <20140904154819.GH18620@edge> <20140904181056.GO18620@edge> In-Reply-To: <20140904181056.GO18620@edge> Cc: "meta-ti@yoctoproject.org" Subject: Re: poor performance of OpenEmbedded on, BeagleBoneBlack compared to Debian X-BeenThere: meta-ti@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Usage and development list for the meta-ti layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 19:04:26 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 09/04/2014 01:10 PM, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote: > On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 10:55:02AM -0500, Robert Nelson wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote: >>> On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 10:37:24AM -0500, Peter A. Bigot wrote: >>>> On 09/04/2014 10:00 AM, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote: >>>>> On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 02:50:03PM +0000, Mikhail Zakharov wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 8:59 PM, Peter A. Bigot wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> One anomaly I've found is the CPU frequency range. On debian we have: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> debian@beaglebone:~$ cat >>>>>>> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_available_frequencies >>>>>>> 300000 600000 800000 1000000 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> while on OE we have: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> root@beaglebone:~# cat >>>>>>> /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_available_frequencies >>>>>>> 300000 600000 720000 800000 >>>>>> Stock yocto-bsp is missing a few things that can be found in Robert >>>>>> Nelson's patchset for 3.14 linux kernel. >>>>>> >>>>>> There are lots of other functionality that is missing from yocto-bsp >>>>>> kernel for Beaglebone. I suggest you take at the following repos and >>>>>> scavenge for what you need :P >>>>> First of all, this is meta-ti mailing list for the corresponding BSP. That's >>>>> what Peter was asking for, comparing to Robert's Debian and Yocto reference >>>>> BSPs, not the other way around. >>>>> >>>>> Second, Yocto reference BSP is that way for a reason - it's a reference BSP >>>>> done with pure mainline kernel and u-boot components w/o any patching on top. >>>>> That's its entire purpose. For anything else special, including performance >>>>> tweaks, there are other BSPs available. If there is an issue with performance >>>>> in meta-ti, we'll investigate it and try to match with Robert's BSP. >>>> Yes, at this time meta-ti's BSP performs as well as I've seen any >>>> OE-based system, and gets several things right that meta-yocto-bsp >>>> does not (and one thing wrong that meta-yocto-bsp gets right, I >>>> think; still investigating, will follow-up when I'm sure). >>>> >>>> I've also verified that performance with a native gcc 4.9.1 build on >>>> BeagleBone with hard float is poor, so it's not due to the way OE >>>> builds gcc. I have several competing hypotheses to test. >>> Can you please point to the test case you were using to measure time? I'd like >>> to try it with few different toolchains here as well. BTW, we are currently >>> using Linaro gcc-4.7.3 - I'm wondering how it performs. >>> >>> >>>> But I'm still looking for a way to set the CPU frequency to the >>>> higher values supported on Beaglebone Black. I had hoped meta-ti's >>>> would be able to do that, since it has bone vs boneblack device >>>> trees and u-boot detection. >>>> >>>> Any hints where to look for clock settings? >>> Some of those values are considered overclocking and according to the manual >>> will reduce the lifespan of the part... >> That's an odd statement, as the parts used on the beaglebone black are >> binned and sold for 1Ghz operation. > Robert, Peter, > > So, after some internal discussion, here's an update: > > 1. In TI kernel we do dynamic opp setting based on eFuse check in the file > arch/arm/mach-omap2/opp33xx_data.c > > 2. Since most of our EVMs and EVM-SKs use 2.1 Si, everything works properly > with eFuse check and dynamic opp setting. > > 3. But eFuse was not available in 2.0 rev of silicon, only in 2.1 rev. There > were many BBB boards made with 2.0 Si that were binned to run at 1GHz. And > older 1.0 Si revs were not 1GHz capable. Currently checking with HW and > marketing teams if all/most 2.0 chips are safe to run at 1GHz... As w/o eFuse > there's no way to determine if the chip is 1GHz capable or not. > > 4. If your BBB board has 2.1 Si rev, then you should get 1GHz automatically. > We'll try to figure something out for 2.0 Si boards, but setting opps > statically in dts is considered incorrect and risky... Thank you for the update; that makes many things more clear. I normally develop using an old rev A5C BBB in a jig with a breadboard attached, and never saw the faster speed listed as available. Today to make it easier to compare variations without constantly rebooting, I started running yocto-bsp on that board, and pulled out a rev B BBB on which I'm running meta-ti's kernel. On that one the 1GHz option has suddenly shown up. Indeed, the A5C has a 962A chip which is Si 2.0, while the B has a 962B chip that is Si 2.1, per SPRZ360F. I really thought I was losing it there.... (And no, that didn't fix the performance issue, though it's down to 7m43s under meta-ti+Yocto compared to Debian's 4m54s. Current hypothesis under test is a GCC performance regression between 4.6 and 4.9.1.) Peter