mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andreas Herrmann <aherrmann@suse.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Cc: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Stratos Karafotis <stratosk@semaphore.gr>,
	Thomas Renninger <trenn@suse.com>
Subject: [PATCH 0/1] cpufreq: pcc-cpufreq: Re-introduce deadband effect to reduce number of frequency changes
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2016 14:18:14 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160819121814.GA17296@suselix.suse.de> (raw)

Hello,

I've observed performance degradation with different workloads on HP
ProLiant systems that use pcc-cpufreq driver between older and more
recent kernels. Bisection showed that commit 6393d6a102 (cpufreq:
ondemand: Eliminate the deadband effect) caused a significant
performance drop. This patch was introduced in v3.17.

I am not too familiar with the PCC stuff but I think that elimination
of the deadband effect causes a significant increase of requested
frequency changes which in turn will have to be served by pcc-cpufreq
and slow down corresponding systems significantly.

AFAIK there is no frequency table for this driver, instead the driver
just asks firmware to set any requested frequency for a CPU (if its in
the min-max-range of allowed frequencies). Thus I think the
probability that a requested target frequency is matching the current
frequency of a CPU is lower in comparison to drivers that use a
fixed set of frequencies.

This is with two exceptions:

(1) when a CPU is under full load -- maximum frequency already set and
    maximum frequency is requested.

(2) CPU has just "minor load" -- minimum frequency already set and
    minimum frequency is requested.

I think what commit 6393d6a102 caused is, that case (2) occurs only if
the CPU is fully idle. Whereas before commit 6393d6a102 this case
occurred in all situations when

	load < freq_min/freq_max * 100

I suggest to introduce the old behaviour (re-introduce the deadband effect)
for pcc-cpufreq with the patch that follows.

Here are typical numbers from kernel compilation tests with varying
number of compile jobs:

                     v4.8.0-rc2               4.8.0-rc2-pcc-cpufreq-deadband
 # of jobst   user     sys   elapsed   CPU     user     sys   elapsed   CPU
       2     440.39  116.49  4:33.35   203%   404.85  109.10  4:10.35   205%
       4     436.87  133.39  2:22.88   399%   381.83  128.00  2:06.84   401%
       8     475.49  157.68  1:22.24   769%   344.36  149.08  1:04.29   767%
      16     620.69  188.33  0:54.74  1477%   374.60  157.40  0:36.76  1447%
      32     815.79  209.58  0:37.22  2754%   490.46  160.22  0:24.87  2616%
      64     394.13   60.55  0:13.54  3355%   386.54   60.33  0:12.79  3493%
     120     398.24   61.55  0:14.60  3148%   390.44   61.19  0:13.07  3453%

As expected under full load (64, 120 jobs) performance is "almost"
comparable. But with partial load (esp. 32 jobs) length of kernel
build is just 2/3 with patched kernel in comparison to current
mainline. Similar behaviour is observable since introduction of commit
6393d6a102 (ie. since v3.17).

Numbers are from an HP ProLiant DL580 Gen8 system:
 	- Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E7-4890 v2 @ 2.80GHz
        - 60 CPUs, 128GB RAM

PCC info of this system

  PCCH header (virtual) addr: 0xffffc9000d840000
  PCCH header is at physical address: 0x7ac59000, signature: 0x24504343,
    length: 64 bytes, major: 1, minor: 0, supported features: 0x1,
    command field: 0x1, status field: 0x0, nominal latency: 300 us
    min time between commands: 50000 us, max time between commands: 1000000 us,
    nominal CPU frequency: 2800 MHz, minimum CPU frequency: 150 MHz,
    minimum CPU frequency without throttling: 1200 MHz

Kernel message when driver loads:
  pcc-cpufreq: (v1.10.00) driver loaded with frequency limits: 1200 MHz, 2800 MHz

My patch adds a debug message, which on this system looks like
  pcc-cpufreq: setting deadband limit to 1885000 kHz


Regards,

Andreas

             reply	other threads:[~2016-08-19 12:18 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-08-19 12:18 Andreas Herrmann [this message]
2016-08-19 12:21 ` [PATCH 1/1] " Andreas Herrmann
2016-08-29  6:01   ` Viresh Kumar
2016-09-01 13:21     ` Andreas Herrmann
2016-09-07  5:02       ` Viresh Kumar
2016-09-13 10:53         ` Andreas Herrmann
2016-09-14 14:56         ` Andreas Herrmann
2016-10-05  5:17           ` Viresh Kumar
2016-10-11  6:28             ` Andreas Herrmann
2016-09-16  9:47         ` Andreas Herrmann
2016-09-16 18:48           ` Stratos Karafotis
     [not found]             ` <CADmjqpNE9f7fzQjWsHKB4wEjLq-4ZvQpaC314OcLdQ-i_TAABg@mail.gmail.com>
2016-09-19 16:16               ` Andreas Herrmann
2016-09-19 19:39                 ` Stratos Karafotis
2016-09-22 17:54                   ` Andreas Herrmann
2016-10-05  5:21                     ` Viresh Kumar
2016-08-19 12:40 ` [PATCH 0/1] " Andreas Herrmann
2016-09-23 16:56 ` [PATCH v2 0/2] " Andreas Herrmann
2016-09-23 17:02   ` [PATCH v2 1/2] cpufreq/ondemand: Introduce op to customize mapping of load to frequency Andreas Herrmann
2016-10-05  4:01     ` Viresh Kumar
2016-10-11  6:30       ` Andreas Herrmann
2016-09-23 17:07   ` [PATCH v2 2/2] cpufreq/pcc-cpufreq: Make use of map_load_to_freq op Andreas Herrmann
2016-09-26  9:05     ` [PATCH v3 " Andreas Herrmann

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20160819121814.GA17296@suselix.suse.de \
    --to=aherrmann@suse.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
    --cc=stratosk@semaphore.gr \
    --cc=trenn@suse.com \
    --cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

Powered by JetHome