Hello Alexey,
On 2024-01-26 07:44, Alexey Charkov wrote:
On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 10:32 AM Dragan Simic <dsimic@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On 2024-01-25 10:30, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 24/01/2024 21:30, Alexey Charkov wrote:
>> By default the CPUs on RK3588 start up in a conservative performance
>> mode. Add frequency and voltage mappings to the device tree to enable
>> dynamic scaling via cpufreq
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Alexey Charkov <alchark@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3588s.dtsi | 209
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 209 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3588s.dtsi
>> b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3588s.dtsi
>> index 131b9eb21398..e605be531a0f 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3588s.dtsi
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3588s.dtsi
>> @@ -97,6 +97,7 @@ cpu_l0: cpu@0 {
>> clocks = <&scmi_clk SCMI_CLK_CPUL>;
>> assigned-clocks = <&scmi_clk SCMI_CLK_CPUL>;
>> assigned-clock-rates = <816000000>;
>> + operating-points-v2 = <&cluster0_opp_table>;
>> cpu-idle-states = <&CPU_SLEEP>;
>> i-cache-size = <32768>;
>> i-cache-line-size = <64>;
>> @@ -116,6 +117,7 @@ cpu_l1: cpu@100 {
>> enable-method = "psci";
>> capacity-dmips-mhz = <530>;
>> clocks = <&scmi_clk SCMI_CLK_CPUL>;
>> + operating-points-v2 = <&cluster0_opp_table>;
>> cpu-idle-states = <&CPU_SLEEP>;
>> i-cache-size = <32768>;
>> i-cache-line-size = <64>;
>> @@ -135,6 +137,7 @@ cpu_l2: cpu@200 {
>> enable-method = "psci";
>> capacity-dmips-mhz = <530>;
>> clocks = <&scmi_clk SCMI_CLK_CPUL>;
>> + operating-points-v2 = <&cluster0_opp_table>;
>> cpu-idle-states = <&CPU_SLEEP>;
>> i-cache-size = <32768>;
>> i-cache-line-size = <64>;
>> @@ -154,6 +157,7 @@ cpu_l3: cpu@300 {
>> enable-method = "psci";
>> capacity-dmips-mhz = <530>;
>> clocks = <&scmi_clk SCMI_CLK_CPUL>;
>> + operating-points-v2 = <&cluster0_opp_table>;
>> cpu-idle-states = <&CPU_SLEEP>;
>> i-cache-size = <32768>;
>> i-cache-line-size = <64>;
>> @@ -175,6 +179,7 @@ cpu_b0: cpu@400 {
>> clocks = <&scmi_clk SCMI_CLK_CPUB01>;
>> assigned-clocks = <&scmi_clk SCMI_CLK_CPUB01>;
>> assigned-clock-rates = <816000000>;
>> + operating-points-v2 = <&cluster1_opp_table>;
>> cpu-idle-states = <&CPU_SLEEP>;
>> i-cache-size = <65536>;
>> i-cache-line-size = <64>;
>> @@ -194,6 +199,7 @@ cpu_b1: cpu@500 {
>> enable-method = "psci";
>> capacity-dmips-mhz = <1024>;
>> clocks = <&scmi_clk SCMI_CLK_CPUB01>;
>> + operating-points-v2 = <&cluster1_opp_table>;
>> cpu-idle-states = <&CPU_SLEEP>;
>> i-cache-size = <65536>;
>> i-cache-line-size = <64>;
>> @@ -215,6 +221,7 @@ cpu_b2: cpu@600 {
>> clocks = <&scmi_clk SCMI_CLK_CPUB23>;
>> assigned-clocks = <&scmi_clk SCMI_CLK_CPUB23>;
>> assigned-clock-rates = <816000000>;
>> + operating-points-v2 = <&cluster2_opp_table>;
>> cpu-idle-states = <&CPU_SLEEP>;
>> i-cache-size = <65536>;
>> i-cache-line-size = <64>;
>> @@ -234,6 +241,7 @@ cpu_b3: cpu@700 {
>> enable-method = "psci";
>> capacity-dmips-mhz = <1024>;
>> clocks = <&scmi_clk SCMI_CLK_CPUB23>;
>> + operating-points-v2 = <&cluster2_opp_table>;
>> cpu-idle-states = <&CPU_SLEEP>;
>> i-cache-size = <65536>;
>> i-cache-line-size = <64>;
>> @@ -348,6 +356,207 @@ l3_cache: l3-cache {
>> };
>> };
>> + cluster0_opp_table: opp-table-cluster0 {
>> + compatible = "operating-points-v2";
>> + opp-shared;
>> +
>> + opp-408000000 {
>> + opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <408000000>;
>> + opp-microvolt = <675000 675000 950000>;
>> + clock-latency-ns = <40000>;
>> + };
>> + opp-600000000 {
>> + opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <600000000>;
>> + opp-microvolt = <675000 675000 950000>;
>> + clock-latency-ns = <40000>;
>> + };
>> + opp-816000000 {
>> + opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <816000000>;
>> + opp-microvolt = <675000 675000 950000>;
>> + clock-latency-ns = <40000>;
>> + };
>> + opp-1008000000 {
>> + opp-hz = /bits/ 64 <1008000000>;
>> + opp-microvolt = <675000 675000 950000>;
>> + clock-latency-ns = <40000>;
>> + };
>
> It is not useful to introduce OPP with the same voltage. There is no
> gain in terms of energy efficiency as the compute capacity is linearly
> tied with power consumption (P=CxFxV²) in this case.
>
> For example, opp-408 consumes 2 bogoWatts and opp-816 consumes 4
> bogoWatts (because of the same voltage).
>
> For a workload, opp-408 takes 10 sec and opp-816 takes 5 sec because
> it is twice faster.
>
> The energy consumption is:
>
> opp-408 = 10 x 2 = 20 BogoJoules
> opp-816 = 5 x 4 = 20 BogoJoules
I'd respectfully disagree that including multiple OPPs with the same
voltage
but different frequencies isn't useful. Please allow me to explain.
See, the total amount of consumed energy is, in general, the same for
such
OPPs and the same CPU task(s), if we ignore the static leakage current
and
such stuff, which isn't important here. Though, the emphasis here is
on
"total", i.e. without taking into account the actual amount of time
required
for the exemplified CPU task(s) to complete. If the total amount of
time
is quite short, we aren't going to heat up the package and the board
enough
to hit the CPU thermal throttling; this approach is also sometimes
referred
to as "race to idle", which is actually quite effective for
battery-powered
mobile devices that tend to load their CPU cores in bursts, while
remaining
kind of inactive for the remaining time.
However, if the CPU task(s) last long enough to actually saturate the
thermal
capacities of the package and the board or the device, we're getting
into the
CPU throttling territory, in which running the CPU cores slower, but
still as
fast as possible, may actually be beneficial for the overall CPU
performance.
By running the CPU cores slower, we're lowering the power and
"spreading" the
total energy consumption over time, i.e. we're making some time to
allow
the
generated heat to dissipate into the surroundings. As we know, having
more
energy consumed by the SoC means more heat generated by the SoC, but
the
resulting temperature of the SoC depends on how fast the energy is
consumed,
which equals to how fast the CPUs run; of course, all that is valid
under
the reasonable assumption that the entire cooling setup, including the
board
surroundings, remains unchanged all the time.
On the other hand, convective heat dissipation is approximately
proportional to the temperature differential, therefore heating up the
core to a higher temperature over a shorter period of time would let
it dissipate the same joule amount faster. Given that total joules
Let me point out that the emphasis is again on "shorter period". :)
Yes, when the CPU load is bursty, having multiple same-voltage OPPs
almost surely won't help us at all, as I already noted. However,
the things will surely change when the CPU cores are loaded for
longer amounts of time and, as a result, the defined thermal trips
are reached, because the cooling system gets saturated.
generated for a particular load are approximately the same for
different frequencies as long as voltage remains the same (as Daniel
pointed out), higher frequency seems to lead to better heat transfer
to the environment for the same load. And also the task completes
sooner, which is probably always good, ceteris paribus.
Not sure how that all changes when throttling enters the game though :)
As I already noted above, the things are quite different when the CPU
load isn't bursty. Once the cooling setup is saturated, the heat no
longer gets transferred effectively to the surroundings, while the CPU
cores keep producing the heat, which cannot continue indefinitely. As
a result, the CPU cores need to run slower and "spread" the total amount
of joules over time, but they still should run as fast as possible.
Another option is to introduce active cooling, which also comes with
its own set of limits, but the initial assumption is that the cooling
setup remains unchanged.
In the end, if all that weren't the case, we wouldn't need CPU thermal
throttling at all, or not as much. :)
