On Wed, Feb 06, 2019 at 04:05:41PM +0530, Amit Kucheria wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 26, 2019 at 3:50 AM Matthias Kaehlcke <m...@chromium.org> wrote:
> > > > > trips {
> > > > > - cpu_alert0: trip0 {
> > > > > + cpu0_alert1: trip-point@0 {
> > > > > temperature = <75000>;
> > > >
> > > > In my observations a 'switch on/threshold' temperature of 75 degrees
> > > > leads to aggressive throttling with IPA when the temperature is above
> > > > this threshold:
> > > >
> > > > [ 716.760804] cpu_cooling_ratelimit: 31 callbacks suppressed
> > > > [ 716.760836] cpu cpu4: Cooling state set to 10. New max freq = 1920000
> > > > [ 716.773390] power_allocator_ratelimit: 15 callbacks suppressed
> > > > [ 716.773405] thermal thermal_zone5: Controlling power:
> > > > control_temp=95000 last_temp=73500, curr_temp=75200
> > > > total_requested_power=39025 total_granted_power=18654
> > > > [ 749.609336] cpu_cooling_ratelimit: 45 callbacks suppressed
> > > > [ 749.609371] cpu cpu4: Cooling state set to 11. New max freq = 1843200
> > > > [ 749.624300] power_allocator_ratelimit: 24 callbacks suppressed
> > > > [ 749.624323] thermal thermal_zone5: Controlling power:
> > > > control_temp=95000 last_temp=70800, curr_temp=77200
> > > > total_requested_power=40136 total_granted_power=17402
> > > > [ 780.152633] cpu_cooling_ratelimit: 41 callbacks suppressed
> > > > [ 780.152666] cpu cpu4: Cooling state set to 11. New max freq = 1843200
> > > > [ 780.165247] power_allocator_ratelimit: 21 callbacks suppressed
> > > > [ 780.165261] thermal thermal_zone5: Controlling power:
> > > > control_temp=95000 last_temp=64800, curr_temp=76900
> > > > total_requested_power=39719 total_granted_power=1759
> > > >
> > > > (the logs come from a local patch in our tree:
> > > > https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/third_party/kernel/+/ec1c501a8093fed44a6697a5913ef2765f518e1f)
> > > >
> > > > At this point I don't have a clear idea what would be a reasonable
> > > > value for the 'switch on/threshold' temperature, but probably it
> > > > should to be higher than 75 degrees, at least with IPA. If there is
> > > > no reasonable common configuration for different thermal governors I
> > > > guess we'll have to target a commonly used governor and systems
> > > > using other 'incompatible' governors need to override the config in
> > > > their <board>.dtsi.
> > >
>
> Thanks for the elaborate testing and for sharing the numbers. This is
> very useful information.
>
> > > On my system I don't see a significant delta in core temperatures for
> > > 'threshold' temperatures of 80, 85 or 90°C. However Dhrystone
> > > performance goes up by ~8% when changing the trip point from 80 to
> > > 85°C. For a switch from 85 to 90°C I see a ~2% performance delta. For
> > > all trip points the average core temperatures are ~80°C (silver) and
> > > ~85°C (gold). Interestingly I observed the highest average
> > > temperatures with the trip point at 80°C (repeated measurements were
> > > taken for different temperatures).
> > >
> > > Supposedly LMH throttling is disabled in the firmware I used for
> > > these tests, however data suggests that it is still active
> > > (temperature doesn't rise beyond 95°C, even without throttling in
> > > Linux; Dhrystone performance drops when raising the temperature beyond
> > > 95°C with a heat gun. I will do some more testing when I get my hands
> > > on a FW that effectively disables LMH (or raises the threshold to
> > > something like 105°C).
> > >
> > > From the data collected so far I'd suggest a 'threshold' temperature
> > > of 90°C or if that seems to high 85°C. Behavior might be different
> > > with other thermal governors or without LMH throttling..
> >
> > Some more data from measurements with different trips points, for the
> > IPA and the Fair Share governors, LMH throttling was enabled:
> >
> > IPA
> > Dhrystone Temp Silver Temp Gold
> > 75 6M 78.4 84.9
> > 80 6.21M 81.4 89.8
> > 85 6.74M 81.7 88.2
> > 90 6.88M 79.4 84.6
> >
> > Fair Share
> > Dhrystone Temp Silver Temp Gold
> > 75 6.63M 80.1 88.5
> > 80 6.71M 80.1 88.5
> > 85 6.77M 81.1 87.8
> > 90 7.12M 81.2 87.8
>
> Interesting that you get more MIPs out of fair share governor when
> compared to IPA across the board. What devices were providing energy
> cost information (dynamic-power-coefficient) to the IPA engine? Just
> CPU and GPU? Can you point me to those patches in gerrit?
Only the CPUs provide energy cost information, the GPU isn't fully
hooked up in our tree yet. The cause of the delta could be that for
temperatures < 'target' Fair Share only uses the performance states
specified in 'threshold' for throttling (currently only the boost
frequency), while IPA may use the full range of states of the
'target' trip point.
You can find the patches/configuration here:
https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/third_party/kernel/+log/refs/sandbox/dianders/190130-wip-tree
arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845.dtsi
arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845-cheza.dtsi
> > Within this range the 'threshold' temperature doesn't seem to have a
> > large impact on the average CPU temperature. There is a bit of
> > fluctuation between individual measurements, I wouldn't be surprised
> > if the outliers of Temp Gold for 75 and 90°C converged more with the
> > other values with some more measurements.
> >
> > I learned how to effectively disable LMH throttling, however with that
> > it was fairly easy to have the CPUs overheat, even with throttling in
> > Linux. If it is feasible at all to run with LMH disabled some more
> > actions will be needed (e.g. attaching a heatsink or interrupt support
> > for thermal sensors instead of polling, ...).
>
> Given that LMH kicks in at 95 and IPA manages to maintain temperatures
> in the ballpark of 80-90 regardless of the trip point value, I agree
> that we should move the 1st trip point to 90. This will give maximum
> performance. So in "threshold" and "target" terms 90 becomes the
> threshold. And since LMH kicks in at 95, I've left it as the target
> trip.
>
> These should be sane defaults for upstream and any device can override
> those numbers in their board file.
Sounds good, thanks!
FYI, since I mentioned this earlier: a small heatsink on the SoC
makes a huge difference, with that I didn't encounter thermal
shutdowns during my (limited) tests with LMH disabled. Temperatures
were only slightly higher than with LMH throttling, so it might be
feasible to raise the LMH threshold and only use it as last resort.
Cheers
Matthias
