Re: [PATCH 0/9] GPU-bound energy efficiency improvements for the intel_pstate driver.

[Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com>]

Hi Francisco,

[...]

> Are you no longer interested in improving those aspects of the non-
> HWP
> governor?  Is it that you're planning to delete it and move back to a
> generic cpufreq governor for non-HWP platforms in the near future?

Yes that is the plan for Atom platforms, which are only non HWP
platforms till now. You have to show good gain for performance and
performance/watt to carry and maintain such big change. So we have to
see your performance and power numbers.

> 
> > This will benefit all architectures including x86 + non i915.
> > 
> 
> The current design encourages re-use of the IO utilization statistic
> (see PATCH 1) by other governors as a mechanism driving the trade-off
> between energy efficiency and responsiveness based on whether the
> system
> is close to CPU-bound, in whatever way is applicable to each governor
> (e.g. it would make sense for it to be hooked up to the EPP
> preference
> knob in the case of the intel_pstate HWP governor, which would allow
> it
> to achieve better energy efficiency in IO-bound situations just like
> this series does for non-HWP parts).  There's nothing really x86- nor
> i915-specific about it.
> 
> > BTW intel-pstate can be driven by sched-util governor (passive
> > mode),
> > so if your prove benefits to Broxton, this can be a default.
> > As before:
> > - No regression to idle power at all. This is more important than
> > benchmarks
> > - Not just score, performance/watt is important
> > 
> 
> Is schedutil actually on par with the intel_pstate non-HWP governor
> as
> of today, according to these metrics and the overall benchmark
> numbers?
Yes, except for few cases. I have not tested recently, so may be
better.

Thanks,
Srinivas


> > Thanks,
> > Srinivas
> > 
> > 
> > > > controller does, even though the frequent IO waits may actually
> > > > be
> > > > an
> > > > indication that the system is IO-bound (which means that the
> > > > large
> > > > energy usage increase may not be translated in any performance
> > > > benefit
> > > > in practice, not to speak of performance being impacted
> > > > negatively
> > > > in
> > > > TDP-bound scenarios like GPU rendering).
> > > > 
> > > > Regarding run-time complexity, I haven't observed this governor
> > > > to
> > > > be
> > > > measurably more computationally intensive than the present
> > > > one.  It's a
> > > > bunch more instructions indeed, but still within the same
> > > > ballpark
> > > > as
> > > > the current governor.  The average increase in CPU utilization
> > > > on
> > > > my BXT
> > > > with this series is less than 0.03% (sampled via ftrace for v1,
> > > > I
> > > > can
> > > > repeat the measurement for the v2 I have in the works, though I
> > > > don't
> > > > expect the result to be substantially different).  If this is a
> > > > problem
> > > > for you there are several optimization opportunities that would
> > > > cut
> > > > down
> > > > the number of CPU cycles get_target_pstate_lp() takes to
> > > > execute by
> > > > a
> > > > large percent (most of the optimization ideas I can think of
> > > > right
> > > > now
> > > > though would come at some
> > > > accuracy/maintainability/debuggability
> > > > cost,
> > > > but may still be worth pursuing), but the computational
> > > > overhead is
> > > > low
> > > > enough at this point that the impact on any benchmark or real
> > > > workload
> > > > would be orders of magnitude lower than its variance, which
> > > > makes
> > > > it
> > > > kind of difficult to keep the discussion data-driven [as
> > > > possibly
> > > > any
> > > > performance optimization discussion should ever be ;)].
> > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Srinivas
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > [Absolute benchmark results are unfortunately omitted
> > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > letter
> > > > > > > due to company policies, but the percent change and
> > > > > > > Student's
> > > > > > > T
> > > > > > > p-value are included above and in the referenced
> > > > > > > benchmark
> > > > > > > results]
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > The most obvious impact of this series will likely be the
> > > > > > > overall
> > > > > > > improvement in graphics performance on systems with an
> > > > > > > IGP
> > > > > > > integrated
> > > > > > > into the processor package (though for the moment this is
> > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > enabled
> > > > > > > on BXT+), because the TDP budget shared among CPU and GPU
> > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > frequently become a limiting factor in low-power
> > > > > > > devices.  On
> > > > > > > heavily
> > > > > > > TDP-bound devices this series improves performance of
> > > > > > > virtually any
> > > > > > > non-trivial graphics rendering by a significant amount
> > > > > > > (of
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > order
> > > > > > > of the energy efficiency improvement for that workload
> > > > > > > assuming the
> > > > > > > optimization didn't cause it to become non-TDP-bound).
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > See [1]-[5] for detailed numbers including various
> > > > > > > graphics
> > > > > > > benchmarks
> > > > > > > and a sample of the Phoronix daily-system-tracker.  Some
> > > > > > > popular
> > > > > > > graphics benchmarks like GfxBench gl_manhattan31 and gl_4
> > > > > > > improve
> > > > > > > between 5% and 11% on our systems.  The exact improvement
> > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > vary
> > > > > > > substantially between systems (compare the benchmark
> > > > > > > results
> > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > two different J3455 systems [1] and [3]) due to a number
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > factors,
> > > > > > > including the ratio between CPU and GPU processing power,
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > behavior
> > > > > > > of the userspace graphics driver, the windowing system
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > resolution,
> > > > > > > the BIOS (which has an influence on the package TDP), the
> > > > > > > thermal
> > > > > > > characteristics of the system, etc.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Unigine Valley and Heaven improve by a similar factor on
> > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > systems
> > > > > > > (see the J3455 results [1]), but on others the
> > > > > > > improvement is
> > > > > > > lower
> > > > > > > because the benchmark fails to fully utilize the GPU,
> > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > causes
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > heuristic to remain in low-latency state for longer,
> > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > leaves a
> > > > > > > reduced TDP budget available to the GPU, which prevents
> > > > > > > performance
> > > > > > > from increasing further.  This can be avoided by using
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > alternative
> > > > > > > heuristic parameters suggested in the commit message of
> > > > > > > PATCH
> > > > > > > 8,
> > > > > > > which
> > > > > > > provide a lower IO utilization threshold and hysteresis
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > controller to attempt to save energy.  I'm not proposing
> > > > > > > those for
> > > > > > > upstream (yet) because they would also increase the risk
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > latency-sensitive IO-heavy workloads to regress (like
> > > > > > > SynMark2
> > > > > > > OglTerrainFly* and some arguably poorly designed IPC-
> > > > > > > bound
> > > > > > > X11
> > > > > > > benchmarks).
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Discrete graphics aren't likely to experience that much
> > > > > > > of a
> > > > > > > visible
> > > > > > > improvement from this, even though many non-IGP workloads
> > > > > > > *could*
> > > > > > > benefit by reducing the system's energy usage while the
> > > > > > > discrete
> > > > > > > GPU
> > > > > > > (or really, any other IO device) becomes a bottleneck,
> > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > this is
> > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > attempted in this series, since that would involve making
> > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > energy
> > > > > > > efficiency/latency trade-off that only the maintainers of
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > respective drivers are in a position to make.  The
> > > > > > > cpufreq
> > > > > > > interface
> > > > > > > introduced in PATCH 1 to achieve this is left as an opt-
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > for that
> > > > > > > reason, only the i915 DRM driver is hooked up since it
> > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > get the
> > > > > > > most direct pay-off due to the increased energy budget
> > > > > > > available to
> > > > > > > the GPU, but other power-hungry third-party gadgets built
> > > > > > > into the
> > > > > > > same package (*cough* AMD *cough* Mali *cough* PowerVR
> > > > > > > *cough*) may
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > able to benefit from this interface eventually by
> > > > > > > instrumenting the
> > > > > > > driver in a similar way.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > The cpufreq interface is not exclusively tied to the
> > > > > > > intel_pstate
> > > > > > > driver, because other governors can make use of the
> > > > > > > statistic
> > > > > > > calculated as result to avoid over-optimizing for latency
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > scenarios
> > > > > > > where a lower frequency would be able to achieve similar
> > > > > > > throughput
> > > > > > > while using less energy.  The interpretation of this
> > > > > > > statistic
> > > > > > > relies
> > > > > > > on the observation that for as long as the system is CPU-
> > > > > > > bound, any
> > > > > > > IO
> > > > > > > load occurring as a result of the execution of a program
> > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > scale
> > > > > > > roughly linearly with the clock frequency the program is
> > > > > > > run
> > > > > > > at, so
> > > > > > > (assuming that the CPU has enough processing power) a
> > > > > > > point
> > > > > > > will be
> > > > > > > reached at which the program won't be able to execute
> > > > > > > faster
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > increasing CPU frequency because the throughput limits of
> > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > device
> > > > > > > will have been attained.  Increasing frequencies past
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > point
> > > > > > > only
> > > > > > > pessimizes energy usage for no real benefit -- The
> > > > > > > optimal
> > > > > > > behavior
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > for the CPU to lock to the minimum frequency that is able
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > keep
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > IO devices involved fully utilized (assuming we are past
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > maximum-efficiency inflection point of the CPU's power-
> > > > > > > to-
> > > > > > > frequency
> > > > > > > curve), which is roughly the goal of this series.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > PELT could be a useful extension for this model since its
> > > > > > > largely
> > > > > > > heuristic assumptions would become more accurate if the
> > > > > > > IO
> > > > > > > and CPU
> > > > > > > load could be tracked separately for each scheduling
> > > > > > > entity,
> > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > is not attempted in this series because the additional
> > > > > > > complexity
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > computational cost of such an approach is hard to justify
> > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > stage, particularly since the current governor has
> > > > > > > similar
> > > > > > > limitations.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Various frequency and step-function response graphs are
> > > > > > > available
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > [6]-[9] for comparison (obtained empirically on a BXT
> > > > > > > J3455
> > > > > > > system).
> > > > > > > The response curves for the low-latency and low-power
> > > > > > > states
> > > > > > > of the
> > > > > > > heuristic are shown separately -- As you can see they
> > > > > > > roughly
> > > > > > > bracket
> > > > > > > the frequency response curve of the current
> > > > > > > governor.  The
> > > > > > > step
> > > > > > > response of the aggressive heuristic is within a single
> > > > > > > update
> > > > > > > period
> > > > > > > (even though it's not quite obvious from the graph with
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > levels
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > zoom provided).  I'll attach benchmark results from a
> > > > > > > slower
> > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > non-TDP-limited machine (which means there will be no TDP
> > > > > > > budget
> > > > > > > increase that could possibly mask a performance
> > > > > > > regression of
> > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > kind) as soon as they come out.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Thanks to Eero and Valtteri for testing a number of
> > > > > > > intermediate
> > > > > > > revisions of this series (and there were quite a few of
> > > > > > > them)
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > than half a dozen systems, they helped spot quite a few
> > > > > > > issues of
> > > > > > > earlier versions of this heuristic.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > [PATCH 1/9] cpufreq: Implement infrastructure keeping
> > > > > > > track
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > aggregated IO active time.
> > > > > > > [PATCH 2/9] Revert "cpufreq: intel_pstate: Replace
> > > > > > > bxt_funcs
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > core_funcs"
> > > > > > > [PATCH 3/9] Revert "cpufreq: intel_pstate: Shorten a
> > > > > > > couple
> > > > > > > of long
> > > > > > > names"
> > > > > > > [PATCH 4/9] Revert "cpufreq: intel_pstate: Simplify
> > > > > > > intel_pstate_adjust_pstate()"
> > > > > > > [PATCH 5/9] Revert "cpufreq: intel_pstate: Drop
> > > > > > > ->update_util
> > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > pstate_funcs"
> > > > > > > [PATCH 6/9] cpufreq/intel_pstate: Implement variably low-
> > > > > > > pass
> > > > > > > filtering controller for small core.
> > > > > > > [PATCH 7/9] SQUASH: cpufreq/intel_pstate: Enable LP
> > > > > > > controller
> > > > > > > based on ACPI FADT profile.
> > > > > > > [PATCH 8/9] OPTIONAL: cpufreq/intel_pstate: Expose LP
> > > > > > > controller
> > > > > > > parameters via debugfs.
> > > > > > > [PATCH 9/9] drm/i915/execlists: Report GPU rendering as
> > > > > > > IO
> > > > > > > activity
> > > > > > > to cpufreq.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > [1] http://people.freedesktop.org/~currojerez/intel_pstat
> > > > > > > e-lp
> > > > > > > /bench
> > > > > > > mark-perf-comparison-J3455.log
> > > > > > > [2] http://people.freedesktop.org/~currojerez/intel_pstat
> > > > > > > e-lp
> > > > > > > /bench
> > > > > > > mark-perf-per-watt-comparison-J3455.log
> > > > > > > [3] http://people.freedesktop.org/~currojerez/intel_pstat
> > > > > > > e-lp
> > > > > > > /bench
> > > > > > > mark-perf-comparison-J3455-1.log
> > > > > > > [4] http://people.freedesktop.org/~currojerez/intel_pstat
> > > > > > > e-lp
> > > > > > > /bench
> > > > > > > mark-perf-comparison-J4205.log
> > > > > > > [5] http://people.freedesktop.org/~currojerez/intel_pstat
> > > > > > > e-lp
> > > > > > > /bench
> > > > > > > mark-perf-comparison-J5005.log
> > > > > > > [6] http://people.freedesktop.org/~currojerez/intel_pstat
> > > > > > > e-lp
> > > > > > > /frequ
> > > > > > > ency-response-magnitude-comparison.svg
> > > > > > > [7] http://people.freedesktop.org/~currojerez/intel_pstat
> > > > > > > e-lp
> > > > > > > /frequ
> > > > > > > ency-response-phase-comparison.svg
> > > > > > > [8] http://people.freedesktop.org/~currojerez/intel_pstat
> > > > > > > e-lp
> > > > > > > /step-
> > > > > > > response-comparison-1.svg
> > > > > > > [9] http://people.freedesktop.org/~currojerez/intel_pstat
> > > > > > > e-lp
> > > > > > > /step-
> > > > > > > response-comparison-2.svg
> > > > 
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Intel-gfx mailing list
> > > > Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> > > > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx