All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: srinivas pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>
To: Doug Smythies <dsmythies@telus.net>
Cc: 'Len Brown' <len.brown@intel.com>,
	'Peter Zijlstra' <peterz@infradead.org>,
	'Giovanni Gherdovich' <ggherdovich@suse.cz>,
	'Francisco Jerez' <francisco.jerez.plata@intel.com>,
	'Linux PM' <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
	"'Rafael J. Wysocki'" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
Subject: Re: cpufreq: intel_pstate: HWP mode issue
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2020 07:54:23 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <f49c960588fecc4a88891ded347b40370f5808ec.camel@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <000b01d65535$d148b8c0$73da2a40$@net>

On Wed, 2020-07-08 at 07:41 -0700, Doug Smythies wrote:
> On 2020.06.30 11:41 Doug Smythies wrote:
> > Hi Srinivas,
> > 
> > O.K. let's try this again, starting a new thread, with address list
> > similar to a few weeks ago.
> > I believe I have untangled my multiple issues, such that this e-
> > mail should be only about
> > the single issue of HWP capable processors incorrectly deciding to
> > lower the CPU frequency
> > under some conditions. Also, my previous assertion as to the issue
> > was indeed incorrect.
> > 
> > I now:
> > . never use x86_energy_perf_policy.
> > . For HWP disabled: never change from active to passive or via
> > versa, but rather do it via boot.
> > . after boot always check and reset the various power limit log
> > bits that are set.
> > . never compile the kernel (well, until after any tests), which
> > will set those bits again.
> > . never run prime95 high heat torture test, which will set those
> > bits again.
> > . Note that the tests done for this e-mail never ever set those
> > bits again.
> > . Invented an entirely new way to manifest, demonstrate, and
> > exploit the issue (also mentioned June
> > 6th).
> > . All tests were repeated on another HWP capable computer, so a i5-
> > 9600K and a i5-6200U.
> > 
> > New method (old was periodic workflow):
> > 
> > Long busy, short gap, busy but taking loop time samples so as to
> > estimate CPU frequency.
> > I am calling it an inverse impulse response test.
> > 
> > Assertion:
> > 
> > If the short sleep is somehow simultaneous with some sort of 5.0
> > millisecond (200 Hertz)
> > periodic event (either in HWP itself, or via the driver, I am
> > unable to determine which,
> > but think it is inside the black box that is HWP),
> 
> I have been attempting to characterise the "black box" that is HWP.
> In terms of system response verses EPP, I only observe the HWP loop
> time as the
> response variable.
> 
> 0 <= EPP <= 1 : My test can not measure loop time.
> 2 <= EPP <= 39 : HWP servo loop time 2 milliseconds
> 40 <= EPP <= 55 : HWP servo loop time 3 milliseconds
> 56 <= EPP <= 79 : HWP servo loop time 4 milliseconds
> 80 <= EPP <= 133 : HWP servo loop time 5 milliseconds
> 134 <= EPP <= 143 : HWP servo loop time 6 milliseconds
> 144 <= EPP <= 154 : HWP servo loop time 7 milliseconds
> 155 <= EPP <= 175 : HWP servo loop time 8 milliseconds
> 176 <= EPP <= 255 : HWP servo loop time 9 milliseconds
> 
> If there are other system response differences within
> those groups, I haven't been able to detect them,
> but would be grateful for any further insight.
> 
> Otherwise, in future, I do not see a need to test anything
> other than 9 values of EPP, one from each group.
> 
Thanks Doug,
I think they are enough. But there is no guarantee that every CPU model
will have same results as the power curve will be different.

Thanks,
Srinivas

> > then there is a possibility that the
> > CPU frequency will drop significantly and will take an excessive
> > amount of time to recover.
> > Frequency step ups are exactly on 5.0 millisecond boundaries +/-
> > the short gap time.
> > 
> > . The probability is somewhat inconsistent and a function of
> > whatever else the computer is doing.
> > . The time to recover is a function of EPP, and if EPP is low
> > enough my test never fails.
> > . These tests were all done with default settings.
> > . The "5.0" mSec is only for those default settings, it actually
> > depends on EPP.
> >   . Crude step boundaries, mSec: EPP=32, 2; EPP=64, 4; EPP=128,
> > 5.00; EPP=196, 9
> 
> Now fully understood, as listed above.
> 
> > . High level: i5-9600K: 2453 tests, 60 failures, 2.45% fail rate.
> > (HWP - powersave)
> > . High level: i5-6200U: 4134 tests, 128 failures, 3.1% fail rate.
> > (HWP - powersave)
> > . Low level (capture waveforms): i5-9600K: 1842 captured failure
> > waveforms. See graph.
> > . Low level (capture waveforms): i5-6200U: 458 captured failure
> > waveforms. See graph.
> > . Verify acpi-cpufreq/ondemand works fine: i5-9600K: 8975 tests. 0
> > failures.
> > . Verify acpi-cpufreq/ondemand works fine: i5-6200U: 8575 tests. 0
> > failures.
> 
> The tests were all done using the teo idle governor.
> While the menu governor does not fail for this particular test, it
> fails
> in other scenarios.
> 
> I have yet to find a failure scenario when idle state 2 is disabled.
> I have captured and analyzed about 400 megabytes of trace data,
> and have not been able to isolate an exact correlation.
> 
> > The short gap was 842 uSeconds for all these tests, and for no
> > particular reason.
> > 
> > While I have not re-done the bounds investigation, I have no reason
> > to doubt
> > my previous work, re-stated below:
> > 
> > > Gap definition:
> > > lower limit not known, but < 747 uSeconds.
> > > Upper limit is between 952 and 955 uSeconds (there will be some
> > > overhead uncertainties).
> 
> The only new information I have is that the upper bound is bigger.
> 
> > > Must be preceded by busy time spanning a couple of HWP sampling
> > > boundaries
> > > or jiffy boundaries or something (I don't actually know how HWP
> > > does stuff).
> > 
> > Rather than point to graphs, which nobody seems to look at, they
> > are attached,
> > and so might get striped for some of you.
> > 
> > ... Doug
> > 
> > Addendum: Some of the MSRs you have requested in the past:
> > 
> > i5-9600K (HWP - powersave after test):
> > 
> > root@s18:/home/doug# /home/doug/c/msr-decoder
> > 8.) 0x198: IA32_PERF_STATUS     : CPU 0-5 :   8 :   8 :   8 :   8
> > :   8 :   8 :
> > B.) 0x770: IA32_PM_ENABLE: 1 : HWP enable
> > 1.) 0x19C: IA32_THERM_STATUS: 88480000
> > 2.) 0x1AA: MSR_MISC_PWR_MGMT: 401CC0 EIST enabled Coordination
> > enabled OOB Bit 8 reset OOB Bit 18
> > reset
> > 3.) 0x1B1: IA32_PACKAGE_THERM_STATUS: 88460000
> > 4.) 0x64F: MSR_CORE_PERF_LIMIT_REASONS: 0
> > A.) 0x1FC: MSR_POWER_CTL: 3C005D : C1E disable : EEO disable : RHO
> > disable
> > 5.) 0x771: IA32_HWP_CAPABILITIES (performance): 108252E : high 46 :
> > guaranteed 37 : efficient 8 :
> > lowest 1
> > 6.) 0x774: IA32_HWP_REQUEST:    CPU 0-5 :
> >     raw: 80002E08 : 80002E08 : 80002E08 : 80002E08 : 80002E08 :
> > 80002E08 :
> >     min:        8 :        8 :        8 :        8 :        8
> > :        8 :
> >     max:       46 :       46 :       46 :       46 :       46
> > :       46 :
> >     des:        0 :        0 :        0 :        0 :        0
> > :        0 :
> >     epp:      128 :      128 :      128 :      128 :      128
> > :      128 :
> >     act:        0 :        0 :        0 :        0 :        0
> > :        0 :
> > 7.) 0x777: IA32_HWP_STATUS: 0 : high 0 : guaranteed 0 : efficient 0
> > : lowest 0
> > 
> > i5-9600K (no HWP - acpi-cpufreq/ondemand after test):
> > 
> > root@s18:/home/doug/c# /home/doug/c/msr-decoder
> > 8.) 0x198: IA32_PERF_STATUS     : CPU 0-5 :   8 :   8 :   8 :   8
> > :   8 :   8 :
> > B.) 0x770: IA32_PM_ENABLE: 0 : HWP disable
> > 9.) 0x199: IA32_PERF_CTL        : CPU 0-5 :   8 :   8 :   8 :   8
> > :   8 :   8 :
> > C.) 0x1B0: IA32_ENERGY_PERF_BIAS: CPU 0-5 :   6 :   6 :   6 :   6
> > :   6 :   6 :
> > 1.) 0x19C: IA32_THERM_STATUS: 88480000
> > 2.) 0x1AA: MSR_MISC_PWR_MGMT: 401CC0 EIST enabled Coordination
> > enabled OOB Bit 8 reset OOB Bit 18
> > reset
> > 3.) 0x1B1: IA32_PACKAGE_THERM_STATUS: 88460000
> > 4.) 0x64F: MSR_CORE_PERF_LIMIT_REASONS: 0
> > A.) 0x1FC: MSR_POWER_CTL: 3C005D : C1E disable : EEO disable : RHO
> > disable
> > 
> > i5-6200U (HWP - powersave after test):
> > 
> > 8.) 0x198: IA32_PERF_STATUS : CPU 0-3 : 19 : 19 : 19 : 19 :
> > B.) 0x770: IA32_PM_ENABLE: 1 : HWP enable
> > 1.) 0x19C: IA32_THERM_STATUS: 88430000
> > 2.) 0x1AA: MSR_MISC_PWR_MGMT: 4018C0 EIST enabled Coordination
> > enabled OOB Bit 8 reset OOB Bit 18
> > reset
> > 3.) 0x1B1: IA32_PACKAGE_THERM_STATUS: 88420000
> > 4.) 0x64F: MSR_CORE_PERF_LIMIT_REASONS: 0
> > A.) 0x1FC: MSR_POWER_CTL: 24005D : C1E disable : EEO enable : RHO
> > enable
> > 5.) 0x771: IA32_HWP_CAPABILITIES (performance): 105171C : high 28 :
> > guaranteed 23 : efficient 5 :
> > lowest 1
> > 6.) 0x774: IA32_HWP_REQUEST: CPU 0-3 :
> >     raw: 80001B04 : 80001B04 : 80001B04 : 80001B04 :
> >     min:        4 :        4 :        4 :        4 :
> >     max:       27 :       27 :       27 :       27 :
> >     des:        0 :        0 :        0 :        0 :
> >     epp:      128 :      128 :      128 :      128 :
> >     act:        0 :        0 :        0 :        0 :
> > 7.) 0x777: IA32_HWP_STATUS: 4 : high 4 : guaranteed 0 : efficient 0
> > : lowest 0
> > 
> > i5-6200U (no HWP - acpi-cpufreq/ondemand after test):
> > 
> > 8.) 0x198: IA32_PERF_STATUS     : CPU 0-3 :  23 :  23 :  23 :  23 :
> > B.) 0x770: IA32_PM_ENABLE: 0 : HWP disable
> > 9.) 0x199: IA32_PERF_CTL        : CPU 0-3 :  11 :   5 :   5 :   5 :
> > C.) 0x1B0: IA32_ENERGY_PERF_BIAS: CPU 0-3 :   6 :   6 :   6 :   6 :
> > 1.) 0x19C: IA32_THERM_STATUS: 88440000
> > 2.) 0x1AA: MSR_MISC_PWR_MGMT: 4018C0 EIST enabled Coordination
> > enabled OOB Bit 8 reset OOB Bit 18
> > reset
> > 3.) 0x1B1: IA32_PACKAGE_THERM_STATUS: 88430000
> > 4.) 0x64F: MSR_CORE_PERF_LIMIT_REASONS: 0
> > A.) 0x1FC: MSR_POWER_CTL: 24005D : C1E disable : EEO enable : RHO
> > enable
> 
> 


  reply	other threads:[~2020-07-08 14:54 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-05-26 18:20 [RFC/RFT][PATCH] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Accept passive mode with HWP enabled Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-05-31 16:39 ` Doug Smythies
2020-05-31 16:54   ` Srinivas Pandruvada
2020-05-31 18:06     ` Doug Smythies
2020-05-31 18:59       ` Srinivas Pandruvada
2020-05-31 19:28         ` Srinivas Pandruvada
2020-05-31 21:38           ` Doug Smythies
2020-06-30 19:10       ` cpufreq: intel_pstate: HWP mode issue Doug Smythies
2020-07-08 14:41       ` Doug Smythies
2020-07-08 14:54         ` srinivas pandruvada [this message]
2020-07-08 15:39           ` Doug Smythies
2020-08-02 14:36         ` Doug Smythies
2020-08-02 18:18           ` Srinivas Pandruvada
2020-12-17 16:58             ` Doug Smythies
2020-05-31 17:15   ` [RFC/RFT][PATCH] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Accept passive mode with HWP enabled Doug Smythies
2020-06-06 15:21   ` Doug Smythies
2020-06-06 15:21 ` Doug Smythies

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=f49c960588fecc4a88891ded347b40370f5808ec.camel@linux.intel.com \
    --to=srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=dsmythies@telus.net \
    --cc=francisco.jerez.plata@intel.com \
    --cc=ggherdovich@suse.cz \
    --cc=len.brown@intel.com \
    --cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
    --subject='Re: cpufreq: intel_pstate: HWP mode issue' \
    /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

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.