From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.4 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68643C433E6 for ; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 23:05:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BA0764DF2 for ; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 23:05:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230013AbhBDXF2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Feb 2021 18:05:28 -0500 Received: from rome.phoronix.com ([192.211.48.82]:20914 "EHLO rome.phoronix.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229787AbhBDXF0 (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Feb 2021 18:05:26 -0500 Received: from c-73-176-63-28.hsd1.il.comcast.net ([73.176.63.28]:36468 helo=[192.168.86.21]) by rome.phoronix.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from ) id 1l7nfl-0004Ug-4n; Thu, 04 Feb 2021 18:04:25 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] x86,sched: On AMD EPYC set freq_max = max_boost in schedutil invariant formula To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Giovanni Gherdovich , Borislav Petkov , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Viresh Kumar , Jon Grimm , Nathan Fontenot , Yazen Ghannam , Thomas Lendacky , Suthikulpanit Suravee , Mel Gorman , Pu Wen , Juri Lelli , Vincent Guittot , Dietmar Eggemann , the arch/x86 maintainers , Linux PM , Linux Kernel Mailing List , ACPI Devel Maling List References: <20210203135321.12253-1-ggherdovich@suse.cz> <20210203135321.12253-2-ggherdovich@suse.cz> <5470319.60Xv9dOaFs@kreacher> <563fec57-6417-e875-1788-3773cbfb34be@phoronix.com> From: Michael Larabel Message-ID: <5ea06dbe-255c-3d22-b9bd-6e627c5f94af@phoronix.com> Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2021 17:04:23 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - rome.phoronix.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - vger.kernel.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - phoronix.com X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: rome.phoronix.com: authenticated_id: michael@phoronix.com X-Authenticated-Sender: rome.phoronix.com: michael@phoronix.com X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2/4/21 7:40 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 12:36 AM Michael Larabel wrote: >> On 2/3/21 12:25 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>> On Wednesday, February 3, 2021 3:11:37 PM CET Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 2:53 PM Giovanni Gherdovich wrote: >>>> [cut] >>>> >>>>> Fixes: 41ea667227ba ("x86, sched: Calculate frequency invariance for AMD systems") >>>>> Fixes: 976df7e5730e ("x86, sched: Use midpoint of max_boost and max_P for frequency invariance on AMD EPYC") >>>>> Reported-by: Michael Larabel >>>>> Tested-by: Michael Larabel >>>>> Signed-off-by: Giovanni Gherdovich >>>>> --- >>>>> drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c | 61 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- >>>>> drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq.c | 3 ++ >>>>> include/linux/cpufreq.h | 5 +++ >>>>> kernel/sched/cpufreq_schedutil.c | 8 +++-- >>>> I don't really think that it is necessary to modify schedutil to >>>> address this issue. >>> So below is a prototype of an alternative fix for the issue at hand. >>> >>> I can't really test it here, because there's no _CPC in the ACPI tables of my >>> test machines, so testing it would be appreciated. However, AFAICS these >>> machines are affected by the performance issue related to the scale-invariance >>> when they are running acpi-cpufreq, so what we are doing here is not entirely >>> sufficient. >> >> I have benchmarks running on several Ryzen and EPYC systems with this >> patch. The full batch of tests won't be done until tomorrow, but in >> looking at the data so far from an AMD EPYC 7F72 2P server over the past >> few hours, this patch does provide fairly comparable numbers to >> Giovanni's patch. There were a few outliers so far but waiting to see >> with the complete set of results. At the very least it's clear enough >> already this new patch is at least an improvement over the current 5.11 >> upstream state with schedutil on AMD. > Thanks for the feedback, much appreciated! > > Let me submit the patch properly, then. Everything continues looking good in running this patch on a variety of AMD Zen2/Zen3 systems. As Giovanni has been focusing on EPYC testing, I have been running several Ryzen laptops/desktop for more exposure and there it's looking very good. On a Ryzen 9 5900X[1] when looking at this latest patch against current 5.11 Git and 5.10, the performance is recovered and in some cases better off now than 5.10 with Schedutil. No anomalies there and with other Zen 2/3 desktops and Zen 2 notebook the performance relative to 5.10 is comparable or in some cases better while all indications point to the 5.11 regression being addressed. Some of the slower systems still finishing up but no unexpected results yet and likely just redundant testing at this point. Tests on EPYC hardware has also been looking good. With some 44 tests on an EPYC 7F72 2P setup[2] when taking the geometric mean of all the data finding it rightly in line with the prior patch from Giovanni. EPYC 7702 and EPYC 7F52 1P performance similarly showing no regression any longer with the patched kernel. This patch also seemed to help CPUFreq ondemand performance improve as well in some cases. Will advise if hitting anything unexpected with the remainder of the testing but all is looking solid at this point and a definite improvement over the current 5.11 Git state. Tested-by: Michael Larabel [1] https://openbenchmarking.org/result/2102048-PTS-RYZEN95920 (5.10 stable vs. 5.11 Git vs. patched.) [2] https://openbenchmarking.org/result/2102048-HA-AMDEPYC7F37 (Giovanni's earlier patch against this new patch, compared to unpatched Linux 5.11 Git and then Linux 5.11 with CPUfreq performance governor.) Michael