Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] arm64: dts: sdm845: wireup the thermal trip points to cpufreq

[Matthias Kaehlcke]

On Wed, Feb 06, 2019 at 11:34:41AM -0800, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 06, 2019 at 04:05:41PM +0530, Amit Kucheria wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 26, 2019 at 3:50 AM Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 90ÂC. However Dhrystone
> > > > performance goes up by ~8% when changing the trip point from 80 to
> > > > 85ÂC. For a switch from 85 to 90ÂC I see a ~2% performance delta. For
> > > > all trip points the average core temperatures are ~80ÂC (silver) and
> > > > ~85ÂC (gold). Interestingly I observed the highest average
> > > > temperatures with the trip point at 80ÂC (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 95ÂC, even without throttling in
> > > > Linux; Dhrystone performance drops when raising the temperature beyond
> > > > 95ÂC 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 105ÂC).
> > > >
> > > > From the data collected so far I'd suggest a 'threshold' temperature
> > > > of 90ÂC or if that seems to high 85ÂC. 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.

I saw that in v4 you allow all performance state to be used for
throttling at the 'threshold' temperature. With this configuration
I get:

               Dhrystone      Temp Silver    Temp Gold

Fair Share     7.29M	      81.4           87.7

IPA            7.14M          81.7           88.3


I have no good sense why we are seeing more MIPs for IPA than with the
previous configuration. As for earlier tests the values are the
average from 4 runs.

In any case it seems like a reasonable default configuration with the
data we have at this 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 90ÂC 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