On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 03:45:52PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 2:33 PM Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Doug,
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 01:19:10PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 10:07 AM Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 11:30:33AM -0700, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> > > > > The 'sustainable_power' attribute provides an estimate of the sustained
> > > > > power that can be dissipated at the desired control temperature. One
> > > > > could argue that this value is not necessarily the same for all devices
> > > > > with the same SoC, which may have different form factors or thermal
> > > > > designs. However there are reasons to specify a (default) value at SoC
> > > > > level for SC7180: most importantly, if no value is specified at all the
> > > > > power_allocator thermal governor (aka 'IPA') estimates a value, using the
> > > > > minimum power of all cooling devices of the zone, which can result in
> > > > > overly aggressive thermal throttling. For most devices an approximate
> > > > > conservative value should be more useful than the minimum guesstimate
> > > > > of power_allocator. Devices that need a different value can overwrite
> > > > > it in their <device>.dts. Also the thermal zones for SC7180 have a high
> > > > > level of granularity (essentially one for each function block), which
> > > > > makes it more likely that the default value just works for many devices.
> > > > >
> > > > > The values correspond to 1901 MHz for the big cores, and 1804 MHz for
> > > > > the small cores. The values were determined by limiting the CPU
> > > > > frequencies to different max values and launching a bunch of processes
> > > > > that cause high CPU load ('while true; do true; done &' is simple and
> > > > > does a good job). A frequency is deemed sustainable if the CPU
> > > > > temperatures don't rise (consistently) above the second trip point
> > > > > ('control temperature', 95 degC in this case). Once the highest
> > > > > sustainable frequency is found, the sustainable power can be calculated
> > > > > by multiplying the energy consumption per core at this frequency (which
> > > > > can be found in /sys/kernel/debug/energy_model/) with the number of
> > > > > cores that are specified as cooling devices.
> > > > >
> > > > > The sustainable frequencies were determined at room temperature
> > > > > on a device without heat sink or other passive cooling elements.
> > >
> > > I'm curious: was this a bare board, or a device in a case? Hrm, I'm
> > > not sure which one would be worse at heat dissipation, but I would
> > > imagine that being inside a plastic case might be worse?
> >
> > This was with a device in a plastic case.
> >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > If maintainers think 'sustainable_power' should be specified at
> > > > > device level (with which I conceptually agree) I'm fine with
> > > > > doing that, just seemed it could be useful to have a reasonable
> > > > > 'default' at SoC level in this case.
> > > >
> > > > Any comments on this?
> > >
> > > I'm not massively familiar with this area of the code, but I guess I
> > > shouldn't let that stop me from having an opinion! :-P
> > >
> > > * I would agree that it seems highly unlikely that someone would put
> > > one of these chips in a device that could only dissipate the heat from
> > > the lowest OPP, so having some higher estimate definitely makes sense.
> > >
> > > * In terms of the numbers here, I believe that you're claiming that we
> > > can dissipate 768 mW * 6 + 1202 mW * 2 = ~7 Watts of power.
> >
> > No, I'm claiming it's 768 mW + 1202 mW = ~2 W.
> >
> > SC7180 has a 6 thermal zones for the 6 little cores and 4 zones for the
> > 2 big cores. Each of these thermal zones uses either all little or all big
> > cores as cooling devices, hence the power sustainable power of the
> > individual zones doesn't add up. 768 mW corresponds to 6x 128 mW (aka all
> > little cores at 1.8 GHz), and 1202 mW to 2x 601 mW (both big cores at 1.9 GHz).
>
> Ah! Thanks for explaining.
>
>
> > > My memory
> > > of how much power we could dissipate in previous laptops I worked on
> > > is a little fuzzy, but that doesn't seem insane for a passively-cooled
> > > laptop. However, I think someone could conceivably put this chip in a
> > > smaller form factor. In such a case, it seems like we'd want these
> > > things to sum up to ~2000 (if it would ever make sense for someone to
> > > put this chip in a phone) or ~4000 (if it would ever make sense for
> > > someone to put this chip in a small tablet).
> >
> > See above, the sustainable power with this patch only adds up to ~2000.
> > It is possible though that it would be lower in a smaller form factor
> > device.
> >
> > I'd be ok with posting something lower for SC7180 (it would be a guess
> > though) and use the specific numbers in the device specific DT.
>
> Given the advice in the bindings it seems like 2W should be fine.
>
>
> > > It seems possible that,
> > > to achieve this, we might have to tweak the
> > > "dynamic-power-coefficient". I don't know how much thought was put
> > > into those numbers, but the fact that the little cores have a super
> > > round 100 for their dynamic-power-coefficient makes me feel like they
> > > might have been more schwags than anything. Rajendra maybe knows?
> >
> > Yeah, it's possible that that was just an approximation
> >
> > > * I'm curious about the fact that there are two numbers here: one for
> > > littles and one for bigs. If I had to guess I'd say that since all
> > > the cores are in one package so the contributions kinda need to be
> > > thought of together, right? If we're sitting there thermally
> > > throttled then we'd want to pick the best perf-per-watt for the
> > > overall package. This is why your patch says we can sustain the
> > > little cores at max and the big cores get whatever is left over,
> > > right?
> >
> > It's derived from how Qualcomm specified the thermal zones and cooling
> > devices. Any ("cpu") zone is either cooled by (all) big cores or by (all)
> > little cores, but not a mix of them. In my tests I also saw that the big
> > cores seemed to have little impact on the little ones. The little cores
> > are at max because even running at max frequency the temperature in the
> > 'little zones' wouldn't come close to the trip point.
>
> OK, crazy. I suppose that this makes sense,especially without a
> heatsink and over a short burst of time. I'd imagine that with a
> heatsink things might look different, but trying to model everything
> is impossible and seems like what't there works OK until someone can
> say why it doesn't. :-)
Exactly, they will likely look different, but since we want conservative
numbers for the generic case it's ok/good to use numbers from a
configuration without heatsink.
And 1.9 GHz doesn't even seem horribly slow for a device with a heatsink.
When we have such a device we can evaluate whether there are significant
gains from tweaking the values for the big cores in the device specific DT.
> > > * Should we be leaving some room in here for the GPU? ...or I guess
> > > once we list it as a cooling device we'll have to decrease the amount
> > > the CPUs can use?
> >
> > I don't know for sure, but judging from the CPU zones I wouldn't be
> > surprised if the GPU was managed exclusively in the dedicated GPU
> > thermal zones (I guess that's what 'gpuss0-thermal' and 'gpuss1-thermal'
> > are). If that's not the case the values in the CPU zones can be
> > adjusted when specific data is available.
>
> Sounds good.
>
>
> > > So I guess the tl; dr is:
> > >
> > > a) We should check "dynamic-power-coefficient" and possibly adjust.
> >
> > ok, lets see if Rajendra can check if there is room for tweaking.
> >
> > > b) I don't think the "conservative" by-default numbers should add up
> > > to 7 Watts. I could be convinced that this chip is not intended for
> > > phones and thus we could have it add up to 4 Watts, but 7 Watts seems
> > > too much.
> >
> > I suppose this is mostly addressed by my explications above, unless we
> > think that 2 Watts in CPU power might still be too aggressive as a
> > default.
>
> With all your explanations, I'm happy to add:
>
> Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks!
