From: Francisco Jerez <currojerez@riseup.net> To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, "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: Thu, 14 May 2020 17:48:57 -0700 [thread overview] Message-ID: <878shut43q.fsf@riseup.net> (raw) In-Reply-To: <10201092.tPqIMJ2V0o@kreacher> [-- Attachment #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 #2: signature.asc --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 227 bytes --]
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Francisco Jerez <currojerez@riseup.net> To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net> Cc: amit.kucheria@verdurent.com, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, daniel.lezcano@linaro.org, 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: Thu, 14 May 2020 17:48:57 -0700 [thread overview] Message-ID: <878shut43q.fsf@riseup.net> (raw) In-Reply-To: <10201092.tPqIMJ2V0o@kreacher> [-- 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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-05-15 0:48 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 ` [RFC] GPU-bound energy efficiency improvements for the intel_pstate driver (v2.99) Peter Zijlstra 2020-05-11 10:57 ` [Intel-gfx] " 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 [this message] 2020-05-15 0:48 ` 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=878shut43q.fsf@riseup.net \ --to=currojerez@riseup.net \ --cc=amit.kucheria@verdurent.com \ --cc=chris.p.wilson@intel.com \ --cc=daniel.lezcano@linaro.org \ --cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \ --cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=peterz@infradead.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: linkBe 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.