Date:   Mon, 30 Jul 2018 08:57:37 -0700
From:   Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Francisco Jerez <currojerez@...eup.net>
Cc:     lenb@...nel.org, rjw@...ysocki.net, peterz@...radead.org,
        ggherdovich@...e.cz, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, juri.lelli@...hat.com,
        viresh.kumar@...aro.org, Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>,
        Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Eero Tamminen <eero.t.tamminen@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] cpufreq: intel_pstate: enable boost for Skylake Xeon

On Mon, 2018-07-30 at 16:43 +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 01:21:51PM -0700, Francisco Jerez wrote:
> > > > Please revert this series, it led to significant energy usage
> > > > and
> > > > graphics performance regressions [1].  The reasons are roughly
> > > > the ones
> > > > we discussed by e-mail off-list last April: This causes the
> > > > intel_pstate
> > > > driver to decrease the EPP to zero when the workload blocks on
> > > > IO
> > > > frequently enough, which for the regressing benchmarks detailed
> > > > in [1]
> > > > is a symptom of the workload being heavily IO-bound, which
> > > > means they
> > > > won't benefit at all from the EPP boost since they aren't
> > > > significantly
> > > > CPU-bound, and they will suffer a decrease in parallelism due
> > > > to the
> > > > active CPU core using a larger fraction of the TDP in order to
> > > > achieve
> > > > the same work, causing the GPU to have a lower power budget
> > > > available,
> > > > leading to a decrease in system performance.
> > > 
> > > It slices both ways.
> > 
> > I don't think it's acceptable to land an optimization that trades
> > performance of one use-case for another,
> 
> The same logic applies to a revert but that aside, I see that there
> is
> at least one patch floating around to disable HWP Boost for desktops
> and
> laptops. Maybe that'll be sufficient for the cases where IGP is a
> major
> component.
We don't have to revert the series. The only contention is desktop cpu
model. I didn't have this model before the last version.
One entry level server uses the same CPU model as desktop, some users
like Giovanni suggested to add. But we know that those machines are
servers from ACPI. So we can differentiate.

Thanks,
Srinivas




> 
> > especially since one could make
> > both use-cases happy by avoiding the boost in cases where we know
> > beforehand that we aren't going to achieve any improvement in
> > performance, because an application waiting frequently on an IO
> > device
> > which is 100% utilized isn't going to run faster just because we
> > ramp up
> > the CPU frequency, since the IO device won't be able to process
> > requests
> > from the application faster anyway, so we will only be pessimizing
> > energy efficiency (and potentially decreasing performance of the
> > GPU
> > *and* of other CPU cores living on the same package for no
> > benefit).
> > 
> 
> The benchmarks in question are not necessarily utilising IO at 100%
> or
> IO-bound. One pattern is a small fsync which ends up context
> switching
> between the process and a journalling thread (may be dedicated
> thread, may be
> workqueue depending on filesystem) and the process waking again in
> the very
> near future on IO completion. While the workload may be single
> threaded,
> more than one core is in use because of how the short sleeps migrate
> the
> task to other cores.  HWP does not necessarily notice that the task
> is
> quite CPU-intensive due to the migrations and so the performance
> suffers.
> 
> Some effort is made to minimise the number of cores used with this
> sort
> of waker/wakee relationship but it's not necessarily enough for HWP
> to
> boost the frequency.  Minimally, the journalling thread woken up will
> not wake on the same CPU as the IO issuer except under extremely
> heavily
> utilisation and this is not likely to change (stacking stacks too
> often
> increases wakeup latency).
> 
> > > With the series, there are large boosts to performance on other
> > > workloads where a slight increase in power usage is acceptable in
> > > exchange for performance. For example,
> > > 
> > > Single socket skylake running sqlite
> > >                                  v4.17               41ab43c9
> > > Min       Trans     2580.85 (   0.00%)     5401.58 ( 109.29%)
> > > Hmean     Trans     2610.38 (   0.00%)     5518.36 ( 111.40%)
> > > Stddev    Trans       28.08 (   0.00%)      208.90 (-644.02%)
> > > CoeffVar  Trans        1.08 (   0.00%)        3.78 (-251.57%)
> > > Max       Trans     2648.02 (   0.00%)     5992.74 ( 126.31%)
> > > BHmean-50 Trans     2629.78 (   0.00%)     5643.81 ( 114.61%)
> > > BHmean-95 Trans     2620.38 (   0.00%)     5538.32 ( 111.36%)
> > > BHmean-99 Trans     2620.38 (   0.00%)     5538.32 ( 111.36%)
> > > 
> > > That's over doubling the transactions per second for that
> > > workload.
> > > 
> > > Two-socket skylake running dbench4
> > >                                 v4.17               41ab43c9
> > > Amean      1         40.85 (   0.00%)       14.97 (  63.36%)
> > > Amean      2         42.31 (   0.00%)       17.33 (  59.04%)
> > > Amean      4         53.77 (   0.00%)       27.85 (  48.20%)
> > > Amean      8         68.86 (   0.00%)       43.78 (  36.42%)
> > > Amean      16        82.62 (   0.00%)       56.51 (  31.60%)
> > > Amean      32       135.80 (   0.00%)      116.06 (  14.54%)
> > > Amean      64       737.51 (   0.00%)      701.00 (   4.95%)
> > > Amean      512    14996.60 (   0.00%)    14755.05 (   1.61%)
> > > 
> > > This is reporting the average latency of operations running
> > > dbench. The series over halves the latencies. There are many
> > > examples
> > > of basic workloads that benefit heavily from the series and while
> > > I
> > > accept it may not be universal, such as the case where the
> > > graphics
> > > card needs the power and not the CPU, a straight revert is not
> > > the
> > > answer. Without the series, HWP cripplies the CPU.
> > > 
> > 
> > That seems like a huge overstatement.  HWP doesn't "cripple" the
> > CPU
> > without this series.  It will certainly set lower clocks than with
> > this
> > series for workloads like you show above that utilize the CPU very
> > intermittently (i.e. they underutilize it). 
> 
> Dbench for example can be quite CPU intensive. When bound to a single
> core, it shows up to 80% utilisation of a single core. When unbound,
> the usage of individual cores appears low due to the migrations. It
> may
> be intermittent usage as it context switches to worker threads but
> it's
> not low utilisation either.
> 
> intel_pstate also had logic for IO-boosting before HWP so the user-
> visible
> impact for some workloads is that upgrading a machine's CPU can
> result
> in regressions due to HWP. Similarly it has been observed prior to
> the
> series that specifying no_hwp often performed better. So one could
> argue
> that HWP isn't "crippled" but it did have surprising behaviour.
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists