Re: [RFC] GPU-bound energy efficiency improvements for the intel_pstate driver (v2).

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



"Pandruvada, Srinivas" <srinivas.pandruvada@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Hi Francisco,
>
> On Tue, 2020-03-10 at 14:41 -0700, Francisco Jerez wrote:
>> This is my second take on improving the energy efficiency of the
>> intel_pstate driver under IO-bound conditions.  The problem and
>> approach to solve it are roughly the same as in my previous series
>> [1]
>> at a high level:
>> 
>> In IO-bound scenarios (by definition) the throughput of the system
>> doesn't improve with increasing CPU frequency beyond the threshold
>> value at which the IO device becomes the bottleneck, however with the
>> current governors (whether HWP is in use or not) the CPU frequency
>> tends to oscillate with the load, often with an amplitude far into
>> the
>> turbo range, leading to severely reduced energy efficiency, which is
>> particularly problematic when a limited TDP budget is shared among a
>> number of cores running some multithreaded workload, or among a CPU
>> core and an integrated GPU.
>> 
>> Improving the energy efficiency of the CPU improves the throughput of
>> the system in such TDP-limited conditions.  See [4] for some
>> preliminary benchmark results from a Razer Blade Stealth 13 Late
>> 2019/LY320 laptop with an Intel ICL processor and integrated
>> graphics,
>> including throughput results that range up to a ~15% improvement and
>> performance-per-watt results up to a ~43% improvement (estimated via
>> RAPL).  Particularly the throughput results may vary substantially
>> from one platform to another depending on the TDP budget and the
>> balance of load between CPU and GPU.
>> 
>
> You changed the EPP to 0 intentionally or unintentionally. We know that
> all energy optimization will be disabled with this change. 
> This test was done on an ICL system.
>

Hmm, that's bad, and fully unintentional.  It's probably a side effect
of intel_pstate_reset_vlp() running before intel_pstate_hwp_set(), which
could cause it to use an uninitialized value of hwp_req_cached (zero?).
I'll fix it in v3.  Thanks a lot for pointing this out.

>
> Basically without your patches on top of linux-next: EPP = 0x80
> $sudo rdmsr -a 0x774
> 80002704
> 80002704
> 80002704
> 80002704
> 80002704
> 80002704
> 80002704
> 80002704
>
>
> After your patches
>
> $sudo rdmsr -a 0x774
> 2704
> 2704
> 2704
> 2704
> 2704
> 2704
> 2704
> 2704
>
> I added some prints, basically you change the EPP at startup before
> regular HWP request update path and update on top. So boot up EPP is
> overwritten.
>
>
> [    5.867476] intel_pstate_reset_vlp hwp_req cached:0
> [    5.872426] intel_pstate_reset_vlp hwp_req:404
> [    5.881645] intel_pstate_reset_vlp hwp_req cached:0
> [    5.886634] intel_pstate_reset_vlp hwp_req:404
> [    5.895819] intel_pstate_reset_vlp hwp_req cached:0
> [    5.900958] intel_pstate_reset_vlp hwp_req:404
> [    5.910321] intel_pstate_reset_vlp hwp_req cached:0
> [    5.915406] intel_pstate_reset_vlp hwp_req:404
> [    5.924623] intel_pstate_reset_vlp hwp_req cached:0
> [    5.929564] intel_pstate_reset_vlp hwp_req:404
> [    5.944039] intel_pstate_reset_vlp hwp_req cached:0
> [    5.951672] intel_pstate_reset_vlp hwp_req:404
> [    5.966157] intel_pstate_reset_vlp hwp_req cached:0
> [    5.973808] intel_pstate_reset_vlp hwp_req:404
> [    5.988223] intel_pstate_reset_vlp hwp_req cached:0
> [    5.995823] intel_pstate_reset_vlp hwp_req:404
> [    6.010062] intel_pstate: HWP enabled
>
> Thanks,
> Srinivas
>
>
>
>> One of the main differences relative to my previous version is that
>> the trade-off between energy efficiency and frequency ramp-up latency
>> is now exposed to device drivers through a new PM QoS class [It would
>> make sense to expose it to userspace too eventually but that's beyond
>> the purpose of this series].  The new PM QoS class provides a latency
>> target to CPUFREQ governors which gives them permission to filter out
>> CPU frequency oscillations with a period significantly shorter than
>> the specified target, whenever doing so leads to improved energy
>> efficiency.
>> 
>> This series takes advantage of the new PM QoS class from the i915
>> driver whenever the driver determines that the GPU has become a
>> bottleneck for an extended period of time.  At that point it places a
>> PM QoS ramp-up latency target which causes CPUFREQ to limit the CPU
>> to
>> a reasonably energy-efficient frequency able to at least achieve the
>> required amount of work in a time window approximately equal to the
>> ramp-up latency target (since any longer-term energy efficiency
>> optimization would potentially violate the latency target).  This
>> seems more effective than clamping the CPU frequency to a fixed value
>> directly from various subsystems, since the CPU is a shared resource,
>> so the frequency bound needs to consider the load and latency
>> requirements of all independent workloads running on the same CPU
>> core
>> in order to avoid performance degradation in a multitasking, possibly
>> virtualized environment.
>> 
>> The main limitation of this PM QoS approach is that whenever multiple
>> clients request different ramp-up latency targets, only the strictest
>> (lowest latency) one will apply system-wide, potentially leading to
>> suboptimal energy efficiency for the less latency-sensitive clients,
>> (though it won't artificially limit the CPU throughput of the most
>> latency-sensitive clients as a result of the PM QoS requests placed
>> by
>> less latency-sensitive ones).  In order to address this limitation
>> I'm
>> working on a more complicated solution which integrates with the task
>> scheduler in order to provide response latency control with process
>> granularity (pretty much in the spirit of PELT).  One of the
>> alternatives Rafael and I were discussing was to expose that through
>> a
>> third cgroup clamp on top of the MIN and MAX utilization clamps, but
>> I'm open to any other possibilities regarding what the interface
>> should look like.  Either way the current (scheduling-unaware) PM
>> QoS-based interface should provide most of the benefit except in
>> heavily multitasking environments.
>> 
>> A branch with this series in testable form can be found here [2],
>> based on linux-next from a few days ago.  Another important
>> difference
>> with respect to my previous revision is that the present one targets
>> HWP systems (though for the moment it's only enabled by default on
>> ICL, even though that can be overridden through the kernel command
>> line).  I have WIP code that uses the same governor in order to
>> provide a similar benefit on non-HWP systems (like my previous
>> revision), which can be found in this branch for reference [3] -- I'm
>> planning to finish that up and send it as follow-up to this series
>> assuming people are happy with the overall approach.
>> 
>> Thanks in advance for any review feed-back and test reports.
>> 
>> [PATCH 01/10] PM: QoS: Add CPU_RESPONSE_FREQUENCY global PM QoS
>> limit.
>> [PATCH 02/10] drm/i915: Adjust PM QoS response frequency based on GPU
>> load.
>> [PATCH 03/10] OPTIONAL: drm/i915: Expose PM QoS control parameters
>> via debugfs.
>> [PATCH 04/10] Revert "cpufreq: intel_pstate: Drop ->update_util from
>> pstate_funcs"
>> [PATCH 05/10] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Implement VLP controller
>> statistics and status calculation.
>> [PATCH 06/10] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Implement VLP controller target
>> P-state range estimation.
>> [PATCH 07/10] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Implement VLP controller for HWP
>> parts.
>> [PATCH 08/10] cpufreq: intel_pstate: Enable VLP controller based on
>> ACPI FADT profile and CPUID.
>> [PATCH 09/10] OPTIONAL: cpufreq: intel_pstate: Add tracing of VLP
>> controller status.
>> [PATCH 10/10] OPTIONAL: cpufreq: intel_pstate: Expose VLP controller
>> parameters via debugfs.
>> 
>> [1] https://marc.info/?l=linux-pm&m=152221943320908&w=2
>> [2] 
>> https://github.com/curro/linux/commits/intel_pstate-vlp-v2-hwp-only
>> [3] https://github.com/curro/linux/commits/intel_pstate-vlp-v2
>> [4] 
>> http://people.freedesktop.org/~currojerez/intel_pstate-vlp-v2/benchmark-comparison-ICL.log
>> 

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

[Index of Archives]     [AMD Graphics]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux