All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Francisco Jerez <currojerez@riseup.net>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
	"Pandruvada, Srinivas" <srinivas.pandruvada@intel.com>,
	linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org,
	chris.p.wilson@intel.com, "Vivi,
	Rodrigo" <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>,
	rui.zhang@intel.com, daniel.lezcano@linaro.org,
	amit.kucheria@verdurent.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] GPU-bound energy efficiency improvements for the intel_pstate driver (v2.99)
Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 12:57:01 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200511105701.GA2940@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200428032258.2518-1-currojerez@riseup.net>

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.
> 
> You can also find this series along with the WIP code for non-HWP
> platforms in this branch:
> 
> https://github.com/curro/linux/tree/intel_pstate-vlp-v2.99
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> [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 based 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_update_util_hook() and intel_pstate_set_update_util_hook().
> [PATCHv2.99 06/11] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Call intel_pstate_set_update_util_hook() once from the setpolicy hook.
> [PATCHv2.99 07/11] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Implement VLP controller statistics and target range calculation.
> [PATCHv2.99 08/11] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Implement VLP controller for HWP 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 controller status.
> [PATCHv2.99 11/11] OPTIONAL: cpufreq: intel_pstate: Expose VLP controller 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?

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.

Specifically, I want to use sched_util as cpufreq governor and use the
intel_pstate as a passive driver.



WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Francisco Jerez <currojerez@riseup.net>
Cc: amit.kucheria@verdurent.com, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
	intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, daniel.lezcano@linaro.org,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
	chris.p.wilson@intel.com, "Pandruvada,
	Srinivas" <srinivas.pandruvada@intel.com>,
	rui.zhang@intel.com
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC] GPU-bound energy efficiency improvements for the intel_pstate driver (v2.99)
Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 12:57:01 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200511105701.GA2940@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200428032258.2518-1-currojerez@riseup.net>

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.
> 
> You can also find this series along with the WIP code for non-HWP
> platforms in this branch:
> 
> https://github.com/curro/linux/tree/intel_pstate-vlp-v2.99
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> [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 based 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_update_util_hook() and intel_pstate_set_update_util_hook().
> [PATCHv2.99 06/11] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Call intel_pstate_set_update_util_hook() once from the setpolicy hook.
> [PATCHv2.99 07/11] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Implement VLP controller statistics and target range calculation.
> [PATCHv2.99 08/11] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Implement VLP controller for HWP 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 controller status.
> [PATCHv2.99 11/11] OPTIONAL: cpufreq: intel_pstate: Expose VLP controller 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?

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.

Specifically, I want to use sched_util as cpufreq governor and use the
intel_pstate as a passive driver.


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

  parent reply	other threads:[~2020-05-11 10:57 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-04-28  3:22 [RFC] GPU-bound energy efficiency improvements for the intel_pstate driver (v2.99) Francisco Jerez
2020-04-28  3:22 ` [Intel-gfx] " Francisco Jerez
2020-04-28  3:22 ` [PATCHv2.99 01/11] PM: QoS: Add CPU_SCALING_RESPONSE global PM QoS limit Francisco Jerez
2020-04-28  3:22   ` [Intel-gfx] " Francisco Jerez
2020-04-28  3:22 ` [PATCHv2.99 02/11] drm/i915: Adjust PM QoS scaling response frequency based on GPU load Francisco Jerez
2020-04-28  3:22   ` [Intel-gfx] " Francisco Jerez
2020-04-28  3:22 ` [PATCHv2.99 03/11] OPTIONAL: drm/i915: Expose PM QoS control parameters via debugfs Francisco Jerez
2020-04-28  3:22   ` [Intel-gfx] " Francisco Jerez
2020-04-28  3:22 ` [PATCHv2.99 04/11] cpufreq: Define ADAPTIVE frequency governor policy Francisco Jerez
2020-04-28  3:22   ` [Intel-gfx] " Francisco Jerez
2020-04-28  3:22 ` [PATCHv2.99 05/11] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Reorder intel_pstate_clear_update_util_hook() and intel_pstate_set_update_util_hook() Francisco Jerez
2020-04-28  3:22   ` [Intel-gfx] " Francisco Jerez
2020-04-28  3:22 ` [PATCHv2.99 06/11] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Call intel_pstate_set_update_util_hook() once from the setpolicy hook Francisco Jerez
2020-04-28  3:22   ` [Intel-gfx] " Francisco Jerez
2020-04-28  3:22 ` [PATCHv2.99 07/11] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Implement VLP controller statistics and target range calculation Francisco Jerez
2020-04-28  3:22   ` [Intel-gfx] " Francisco Jerez
2020-04-28  3:22 ` [PATCHv2.99 08/11] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Implement VLP controller for HWP parts Francisco Jerez
2020-04-28  3:22   ` [Intel-gfx] " Francisco Jerez
2020-04-28  3:22 ` [PATCHv2.99 09/11] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Enable VLP controller based on ACPI FADT profile and CPUID Francisco Jerez
2020-04-28  3:22   ` [Intel-gfx] " Francisco Jerez
2020-04-28  3:22 ` [PATCHv2.99 10/11] OPTIONAL: cpufreq: intel_pstate: Add tracing of VLP controller status Francisco Jerez
2020-04-28  3:22   ` [Intel-gfx] " Francisco Jerez
2020-04-28  3:22 ` [PATCHv2.99 11/11] OPTIONAL: cpufreq: intel_pstate: Expose VLP controller parameters via debugfs Francisco Jerez
2020-04-28  3:22   ` [Intel-gfx] " Francisco Jerez
2020-04-28  3:32 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BUILD: failure for series starting with [PATCHv2.99,01/11] PM: QoS: Add CPU_SCALING_RESPONSE global PM QoS limit Patchwork
2020-05-11 10:57 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2020-05-11 10:57   ` [Intel-gfx] [RFC] GPU-bound energy efficiency improvements for the intel_pstate driver (v2.99) Peter Zijlstra
2020-05-11 21:01   ` Francisco Jerez
2020-05-11 21:01     ` [Intel-gfx] " Francisco Jerez
2020-05-14 10:26     ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-05-14 10:26       ` [Intel-gfx] " Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-05-15  0:48       ` Francisco Jerez
2020-05-15  0:48         ` [Intel-gfx] " Francisco Jerez
2020-05-14 11:50     ` Valentin Schneider
2020-05-14 11:50       ` [Intel-gfx] " Valentin Schneider
2020-05-15  0:48       ` Francisco Jerez
2020-05-15  0:48         ` [Intel-gfx] " Francisco Jerez
2020-05-15 18:09         ` Valentin Schneider
2020-05-15 18:09           ` [Intel-gfx] " Valentin Schneider
2020-05-28  9:29           ` Lukasz Luba
2020-05-28  9:29             ` [Intel-gfx] " Lukasz Luba

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20200511105701.GA2940@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net \
    --to=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=amit.kucheria@verdurent.com \
    --cc=chris.p.wilson@intel.com \
    --cc=currojerez@riseup.net \
    --cc=daniel.lezcano@linaro.org \
    --cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
    --cc=rodrigo.vivi@intel.com \
    --cc=rui.zhang@intel.com \
    --cc=srinivas.pandruvada@intel.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.