Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC] GPU-bound energy efficiency improvements for the intel_pstate driver (v2.99)

[Francisco Jerez <currojerez@riseup.net>]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4953 bytes --]

"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net> writes:

> On Monday, May 11, 2020 11:01:41 PM CEST Francisco Jerez wrote:
>> 
>> --==-=-=
>> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=-=-="
>> 
>> --=-=-=
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>> Content-Disposition: inline
>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>> 
>> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> writes:
>> 
>> > On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 08:22:47PM -0700, Francisco Jerez wrote:
>> >> This addresses the technical concerns people brought up about my
>> >> previous v2 revision of this series.  Other than a few bug fixes, the
>> >> only major change relative to v2 is that the controller is now exposed
>> >> as a new CPUFREQ generic governor as requested by Rafael (named
>> >> "adaptive" in this RFC though other naming suggestions are welcome).
>> >> Main reason for calling this v2.99 rather than v3 is that I haven't
>> >> yet addressed all the documentation requests from the v2 thread --
>> >> Will spend some time doing that as soon as I have an ACK (ideally from
>> >> Rafael) that things are moving in the right direction.
>> >>=20
>> >> You can also find this series along with the WIP code for non-HWP
>> >> platforms in this branch:
>> >>=20
>> >> https://github.com/curro/linux/tree/intel_pstate-vlp-v2.99
>> >>=20
>> >> Thanks!
>> >>=20
>> >> [PATCHv2.99 01/11] PM: QoS: Add CPU_SCALING_RESPONSE global PM QoS limit.
>> >> [PATCHv2.99 02/11] drm/i915: Adjust PM QoS scaling response frequency ba=
>> sed on GPU load.
>> >> [PATCHv2.99 03/11] OPTIONAL: drm/i915: Expose PM QoS control parameters =
>> via debugfs.
>> >> [PATCHv2.99 04/11] cpufreq: Define ADAPTIVE frequency governor policy.
>> >> [PATCHv2.99 05/11] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Reorder intel_pstate_clear_upd=
>> ate_util_hook() and intel_pstate_set_update_util_hook().
>> >> [PATCHv2.99 06/11] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Call intel_pstate_set_update_u=
>> til_hook() once from the setpolicy hook.
>> >> [PATCHv2.99 07/11] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Implement VLP controller stati=
>> stics and target range calculation.
>> >> [PATCHv2.99 08/11] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Implement VLP controller for H=
>> WP parts.
>> >> [PATCHv2.99 09/11] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Enable VLP controller based on=
>>  ACPI FADT profile and CPUID.
>> >> [PATCHv2.99 10/11] OPTIONAL: cpufreq: intel_pstate: Add tracing of VLP c=
>> ontroller status.
>> >> [PATCHv2.99 11/11] OPTIONAL: cpufreq: intel_pstate: Expose VLP controlle=
>> r parameters via debugfs.
>> >
>> > What I'm missing is an explanation for why this isn't using the
>> > infrastructure that was build for these kinds of things? The thermal
>> > framework, was AFAIU, supposed to help with these things, and the IPA
>> > thing in particular is used by ARM to do exactly this GPU/CPU power
>> > budget thing.
>> >
>> > If thermal/IPA is found wanting, why aren't we improving that?
>> 
>> The GPU/CPU power budget "thing" is only a positive side effect of this
>> series on some TDP-bound systems.  Its ultimate purpose is improving the
>> energy efficiency of workloads which have a bottleneck on a device other
>> than the CPU, by giving the bottlenecking device driver some influence
>> over the response latency of CPUFREQ governors via a PM QoS interface.
>> This seems to be completely outside the scope of the thermal framework
>> and IPA AFAIU.
>> 
>> >
>> > How much of that ADAPTIVE crud is actually intel_pstate specific? On a
>> > (really) quick read it appears to me that much of the controller bits
>> > there can be applied more generic, and thus should not be part of any
>> > one governor.
>> >
>> 
>> The implementation of that is intel_pstate-specific right now, but the
>> basic algorithm could be made to work on any other governor in
>> principle, which is why it is exposed as a generic CPUFREQ governor.  I
>> don't care about taking out the generic CPUFREQ governor changes if you
>> don't like them, and going back to some driver-specific means of turning
>> it on and off (though Rafael might disagree with that).
>> 
>> > Specifically, I want to use sched_util as cpufreq governor and use the
>> > intel_pstate as a passive driver.
>> 
>> Yeah, getting a similar optimization into the schedutil governor has
>> been on my wish list for a while, but I haven't had the time to get very
>> far on that except for a handful of hacks.  The intel_pstate handling is
>> going to be necessary anyway in order to handle HWP systems gracefully,
>> at least in the near future until schedutil becomes a viable alternative
>> to intel_pstate in active mode on HWP systems.
>
> FWIW, work is under way to make intel_pstate in the passive mode work on HWP
> systems.
>
> I have a prototype patch for that, but it can be improved.  I'll post a new
> version of it for review, possibly next week.
>

Looking forward to that, feel free to CC me on it.

> Cheers!

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 227 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 160 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx