| Message ID | 20210319110511.24787-1-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | dt: rockchip: rk3399: Add dynamic power coefficient for GPU | expand |
On 2021-03-19 11:05, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > The DTPM framework is looking for upstream SoC candidates to share the > power numbers. > > We can see around different numbers but the one which seems to be > consistent with the initial post for the values on the CPUs can be > found in the patch https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/810159/ The kernel hacker in me would be more inclined to trust the BSP that the vendor actively supports than a 5-year-old patch that was never pursued upstream. Apparently that was last updated more recently: https://github.com/rockchip-linux/kernel/commit/98d4505e1bd62ff028bd79fbd8284d64b6f468f8 The ex-mathematician in me can't even comment either way without evidence that whatever model expects to consume this value is even comparable to whatever "arm,mali-simple-power-model" is. The way the latter apparently needs an explicit "static" coefficient as well as a "dynamic" one, and the value here being nearly 3 times that of a similarly-named one in active use downstream (ChromeOS appears to still be using the values from before the above commit), certainly incline me to think they may not be... > I don't know the precision of this value but it is better than > nothing. But is it? If it leads to some throttling mechanism kicking in and crippling GPU performance because it's massively overestimating power consumption, that would be objectively worse for most users, no? Robin. > Hopefully, one day SoC vendors will be more generous with the power > numbers at least for the SoC which are from the previous generation > and give the community the opportunity to develop power based > frameworks. > --- > arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399.dtsi | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399.dtsi > index edbbf35fe19e..1ab1d293d2e9 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399.dtsi > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399.dtsi > @@ -1933,6 +1933,7 @@ > interrupt-names = "job", "mmu", "gpu"; > clocks = <&cru ACLK_GPU>; > #cooling-cells = <2>; > + dynamic-power-coefficient = <977>; > power-domains = <&power RK3399_PD_GPU>; > status = "disabled"; > }; >
Hi Robin, On 19/03/2021 13:17, Robin Murphy wrote: > On 2021-03-19 11:05, Daniel Lezcano wrote: >> The DTPM framework is looking for upstream SoC candidates to share the >> power numbers. >> >> We can see around different numbers but the one which seems to be >> consistent with the initial post for the values on the CPUs can be >> found in the patch https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/810159/ > > The kernel hacker in me would be more inclined to trust the BSP that the > vendor actively supports than a 5-year-old patch that was never pursued > upstream. Apparently that was last updated more recently: > > https://github.com/rockchip-linux/kernel/commit/98d4505e1bd62ff028bd79fbd8284d64b6f468f8 Yes, I've seen this value also. > The ex-mathematician in me can't even comment either way without > evidence that whatever model expects to consume this value is even > comparable to whatever "arm,mali-simple-power-model" is. > > The way the > latter apparently needs an explicit "static" coefficient as well as a > "dynamic" one, and the value here being nearly 3 times that of a > similarly-named one in active use downstream (ChromeOS appears to still > be using the values from before the above commit), certainly incline me > to think they may not be... Sorry, I'm missing the point :/ We dropped in the kernel any static power computation because as there was no value, the resulting code was considered dead. So we rely on the dynamic power only. >> I don't know the precision of this value but it is better than >> nothing. > > But is it? If it leads to some throttling mechanism kicking in and > crippling GPU performance because it's massively overestimating power > consumption, that would be objectively worse for most users, no? No because there is no sustainable power specified for the thermal zones related to the GPU. -- <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook | <http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter | <http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
On 2021-03-19 14:35, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > > Hi Robin, > > On 19/03/2021 13:17, Robin Murphy wrote: >> On 2021-03-19 11:05, Daniel Lezcano wrote: >>> The DTPM framework is looking for upstream SoC candidates to share the >>> power numbers. >>> >>> We can see around different numbers but the one which seems to be >>> consistent with the initial post for the values on the CPUs can be >>> found in the patch https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/810159/ >> >> The kernel hacker in me would be more inclined to trust the BSP that the >> vendor actively supports than a 5-year-old patch that was never pursued >> upstream. Apparently that was last updated more recently: >> >> https://github.com/rockchip-linux/kernel/commit/98d4505e1bd62ff028bd79fbd8284d64b6f468f8 > > Yes, I've seen this value also. > >> The ex-mathematician in me can't even comment either way without >> evidence that whatever model expects to consume this value is even >> comparable to whatever "arm,mali-simple-power-model" is. > >> The way the >> latter apparently needs an explicit "static" coefficient as well as a >> "dynamic" one, and the value here being nearly 3 times that of a >> similarly-named one in active use downstream (ChromeOS appears to still >> be using the values from before the above commit), certainly incline me >> to think they may not be... > > Sorry, I'm missing the point :/ > > We dropped in the kernel any static power computation because as there > was no value, the resulting code was considered dead. So we rely on the > dynamic power only. Right, so a 2-factor model is clearly not identical to a 1-factor model, so how do we know that a value for one is valid for the other, even if it happens to have a similar name? I'm not saying that it is or isn't; I don't know. If someone can point to the downstream coefficient definition being identical to the upstream one then great, let's use that as justification. If not, then the justification of one arbitrary meaningless number over any other is a bit misleading. >>> I don't know the precision of this value but it is better than >>> nothing. >> >> But is it? If it leads to some throttling mechanism kicking in and >> crippling GPU performance because it's massively overestimating power >> consumption, that would be objectively worse for most users, no? > > No because there is no sustainable power specified for the thermal zones > related to the GPU. OK, that's some reassurance at least. Does the exact value have any material effect? If not, what's to stop us from using an obviously made-up value like 1, and saying so? Robin.
On 19/03/2021 19:05, Robin Murphy wrote: > On 2021-03-19 14:35, Daniel Lezcano wrote: >> >> Hi Robin, >> >> On 19/03/2021 13:17, Robin Murphy wrote: >>> On 2021-03-19 11:05, Daniel Lezcano wrote: >>>> The DTPM framework is looking for upstream SoC candidates to share the >>>> power numbers. >>>> >>>> We can see around different numbers but the one which seems to be >>>> consistent with the initial post for the values on the CPUs can be >>>> found in the patch https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/810159/ >>> >>> The kernel hacker in me would be more inclined to trust the BSP that the >>> vendor actively supports than a 5-year-old patch that was never pursued >>> upstream. Apparently that was last updated more recently: >>> >>> https://github.com/rockchip-linux/kernel/commit/98d4505e1bd62ff028bd79fbd8284d64b6f468f8 >>> >> >> Yes, I've seen this value also. >> >>> The ex-mathematician in me can't even comment either way without >>> evidence that whatever model expects to consume this value is even >>> comparable to whatever "arm,mali-simple-power-model" is. > >>> The way the >>> latter apparently needs an explicit "static" coefficient as well as a >>> "dynamic" one, and the value here being nearly 3 times that of a >>> similarly-named one in active use downstream (ChromeOS appears to still >>> be using the values from before the above commit), certainly incline me >>> to think they may not be... >> >> Sorry, I'm missing the point :/ >> >> We dropped in the kernel any static power computation because as there >> was no value, the resulting code was considered dead. So we rely on the >> dynamic power only. > > Right, so a 2-factor model is clearly not identical to a 1-factor model, > so how do we know that a value for one is valid for the other, even if > it happens to have a similar name? I'm not saying that it is or isn't; I > don't know. If someone can point to the downstream coefficient > definition being identical to the upstream one then great, let's use > that as justification. If not, then the justification of one arbitrary > meaningless number over any other is a bit misleading. That's a call :) >>>> I don't know the precision of this value but it is better than >>>> nothing. >>> >>> But is it? If it leads to some throttling mechanism kicking in and >>> crippling GPU performance because it's massively overestimating power >>> consumption, that would be objectively worse for most users, no? >> >> No because there is no sustainable power specified for the thermal zones >> related to the GPU. > OK, that's some reassurance at least. Does the exact value have any > material effect? Yes, it has when it is combined with other devices having also power values, like the CPUs and hopefully the DMC soon. If we can have more or less consistent power numbers for the DMC, CPU and GPU on the rock960, with the thermal zone having these three heating sources, we can use the DTPM framework to act on the power of the whole. I don't know the best coefficient, 733, 977 or 1780 [1] The value of 977 sound to me as a starting point. [1] https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/third_party/kernel/+/factory-gru-8652.B-chromeos-4.4/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399-gru-kevin-r3.dts > If not, what's to stop us from using an obviously > made-up value like 1, and saying so? -- <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook | <http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter | <http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399.dtsi index edbbf35fe19e..1ab1d293d2e9 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399.dtsi +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399.dtsi @@ -1933,6 +1933,7 @@ interrupt-names = "job", "mmu", "gpu"; clocks = <&cru ACLK_GPU>; #cooling-cells = <2>; + dynamic-power-coefficient = <977>; power-domains = <&power RK3399_PD_GPU>; status = "disabled"; };