Date:   Thu, 17 Feb 2022 18:05:14 +0000
From:   Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>
To:     Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>,
        Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Cc:     Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        amit daniel kachhap <amit.kachhap@...il.com>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Amit Kucheria <amitk@...nel.org>,
        Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
        Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Pierre.Gondois@....com, Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>,
        Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@...eaurora.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        jorcrous@...zon.com, Rob Clark <robdclark@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] thermal: cooling: Check Energy Model type in
 cpufreq_cooling and devfreq_cooling



On 2/17/22 5:14 PM, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 08:37:39AM -0800, Doug Anderson wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 2:47 AM Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Daniel,
>>>
>>> On 2/17/22 10:10 AM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>>> On 16/02/2022 18:33, Doug Anderson wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 7:35 AM Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Matthias,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/9/22 10:17 PM, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 09, 2022 at 11:16:36AM +0000, Lukasz Luba wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2/8/22 5:25 PM, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 08, 2022 at 09:32:28AM +0000, Lukasz Luba wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Could you point me to those devices please?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180-trogdor-*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Though as per above they shouldn't be impacted by your change,
>>>>>>>>> since the
>>>>>>>>> CPUs always pretend to use milli-Watts.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [skipped some questions/answers since sc7180 isn't actually
>>>>>>>>> impacted by
>>>>>>>>>      the change]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thank you Matthias. I will investigate your setup to get better
>>>>>>>> understanding.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've checked those DT files and related code.
>>>>>> As you already said, this patch is safe for them.
>>>>>> So we can apply it IMO.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -------------Off-topic------------------
>>>>>> Not in $subject comments:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> AFAICS based on two files which define thermal zones:
>>>>>> sc7180-trogdor-homestar.dtsi
>>>>>> sc7180-trogdor-coachz.dtsi
>>>>>>
>>>>>> only the 'big' cores are used as cooling devices in the
>>>>>> 'skin_temp_thermal' - the CPU6 and CPU7.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I assume you don't want to model at all the power usage
>>>>>> from the Little cluster (which is quite big: 6 CPUs), do you?
>>>>>> I can see that the Little CPUs have small dyn-power-coeff
>>>>>> ~30% of the big and lower max freq, but still might be worth
>>>>>> to add them to IPA. You might give them more 'weight', to
>>>>>> make sure they receive more power during power split.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You also don't have GPU cooling device in that thermal zone.
>>>>>> Based on my experience if your GPU is a power hungry one,
>>>>>> e.g. 2-4Watts, you might get better results when you model
>>>>>> this 'hot' device (which impacts your temp sensor reported value).
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the two boards you point at (homestar and coachz) are just the
>>>>> two that override the default defined in the SoC dtsi file. If you
>>>>> look in sc7180.dtsi you'll see 'gpuss1-thermal' which has a cooling
>>>>> map. You can also see the cooling maps for the littles.
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess we don't have a `dynamic-power-coefficient` for the GPU,
>>>>> though? Seems like we should, but I haven't dug through all the code
>>>>> here...
>>>>
>>>> The dynamic-power-coefficient is available for OPPs which includes
>>>> CPUfreq and devfreq. As the GPU is managed by devfreq, setting the
>>>> dynamic-power-coefficient makes the energy model available for it.
>>>>
>>>> However, the OPPs must define the frequency and the voltage. That is the
>>>> case for most platforms except on QCom platform.
>>>>
>>>> That may not be specified as it uses a frequency index and the hardware
>>>> does the voltage change in our back. The QCom cpufreq backend get the
>>>> voltage table from a register (or whatever) and completes the voltage
>>>> values for the OPPs, thus adding the information which is missing in the
>>>> device tree. The energy model can then initializes itself and allows the
>>>> usage of the Energy Aware Scheduler.
>>>>
>>>> However this piece of code is missing for the GPU part.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you for joining the discussion. I don't know about that Qcom
>>> GPU voltage information is missing.
>>>
>>> If the voltage is not available (only the frequencies), there is
>>> another way. There is an 'advanced' EM which uses registration function:
>>> em_dev_register_perf_domain(). It uses a local driver callback to get
>>> power for each found frequency. It has benefit because there is no
>>> restriction to 'fit' into the math formula, instead just avg power
>>> values can be feed into EM. It's called 'advanced' EM [1].
>>
>> It seems like there _should_ be a way to get the voltage out for GPU
>> operating points, like is done with cpufreq in
>> qcom_cpufreq_hw_read_lut(), but it might need someone with Qualcomm
>> documentation to help with it. Maybe Rajendra would be able to help?
>> Adding Jordon and Rob to this conversation in case they're aware of
>> anything.
>>
>> As you said, we could just list a power for each frequency, though.
>>
>> I'm actually not sure which one would be more accurate across a range
>> of devices with different "corners": specifying a dynamic power
>> coefficient used for all "corners" and then using the actual voltage
>> and doing the math, or specifying a power number for each frequency
>> and ignoring the actual voltage used. In any case we're trying to get
>> ballpark numbers and not every device will be exactly the same, so
>> probably it doesn't matter that much.
>>
>>
>>> Now we hit (again) the DT & EM issue (it's an old one, IIRC Morten
>>> was proposing from ~2014 this upstream, but EAS wasn't merged back
>>> then):
>>> where to store these power-freq values, which are then used by the
>>> callback. We have the 'dynamic-power-coefficient' in DT, but
>>> it has limitations. It would be good to have this simple array
>>> attached to the GPU/CPU node. IMHO it meet the requirement of DT,
>>> it describes the HW (it would have HZ and Watts values).
>>>
>>> Doug, Matthias could you have a look at that function and its
>>> usage, please [1]?
>>> If you guys would support me in this, I would start, with an RFC
>>> proposal, a discussion on LKML.
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.17-rc4/source/Documentation/power/energy-model.rst#L87
>>
>> Matthias: I think you've spent more time on the thermal stuff than me
>> so I'll assume you'll follow-up here. If not then please yell!
>>
>> Ideally, though, someone from Qualcomm would jump in an own this.
>> Basically it allows more intelligently throttling the GPU and CPU
>> together in tandem instead of treating them separately IIUC, right?
> 
> Yes, I think for the em_dev_register_perf_domain() route support from
> Qualcomm would be needed since "Drivers must provide a callback
> function returning <frequency, power> tuples for each performance
> state. ".
> 

Not necessarily. It might be done 'generically' by fwk.

There are other benefits of this 'energy-model' entry in the DT.
I'll list them in the cover letter. Let me send an RFC, so we could
discuss there.

Thanks guys!

Regards,
Lukasz

Powered by blists - more mailing lists