Re: [LKP] [drm/mgag200] 90f479ae51: vm-scalability.median -18.8% regression

From: Feng Tang
Date: Thu Sep 05 2019 - 06:47:50 EST

Next message: Peter Zijlstra: "Re: [RFC PATCH 1/9] sched,cgroup: Add interface for latency-nice"
Previous message: Mauro Carvalho Chehab: "Re: [PATCH] media: siano: Use the correct style for SPDX License Identifier"
In reply to: Daniel Vetter: "Re: [LKP] [drm/mgag200] 90f479ae51: vm-scalability.median -18.8% regression"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 06:37:47PM +0800, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 8:58 AM Feng Tang <feng.tang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Vetter,
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 04, 2019 at 01:20:29PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 1:15 PM Dave Airlie <airlied@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 4 Sep 2019 at 19:17, Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 10:35 AM Feng Tang <feng.tang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Daniel,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Sep 04, 2019 at 10:11:11AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 8:53 AM Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Am 04.09.19 um 08:27 schrieb Feng Tang:
> > > > > > > > >> Thank you for testing. But don't get too excited, because the patch
> > > > > > > > >> simulates a bug that was present in the original mgag200 code. A
> > > > > > > > >> significant number of frames are simply skipped. That is apparently the
> > > > > > > > >> reason why it's faster.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks for the detailed info, so the original code skips time-consuming
> > > > > > > > > work inside atomic context on purpose. Is there any space to optmise it?
> > > > > > > > > If 2 scheduled update worker are handled at almost same time, can one be
> > > > > > > > > skipped?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > To my knowledge, there's only one instance of the worker. Re-scheduling
> > > > > > > > the worker before a previous instance started, will not create a second
> > > > > > > > instance. The worker's instance will complete all pending updates. So in
> > > > > > > > some way, skipping workers already happens.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So I think that the most often fbcon update from atomic context is the
> > > > > > > blinking cursor. If you disable that one you should be back to the old
> > > > > > > performance level I think, since just writing to dmesg is from process
> > > > > > > context, so shouldn't change.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hmm, then for the old driver, it should also do the most update in
> > > > > > non-atomic context?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > One other thing is, I profiled that updating a 3MB shadow buffer needs
> > > > > > 20 ms, which transfer to 150 MB/s bandwidth. Could it be related with
> > > > > > the cache setting of DRM shadow buffer? say the orginal code use a
> > > > > > cachable buffer?
> > > > >
> > > > > Hm, that would indicate the write-combining got broken somewhere. This
> > > > > should definitely be faster. Also we shouldn't transfer the hole
> > > > > thing, except when scrolling ...
> > > >
> > > > First rule of fbcon usage, you are always effectively scrolling.
> > > >
> > > > Also these devices might be on a PCIE 1x piece of wet string, not sure
> > > > if the numbers reflect that.
> > >
> > > pcie 1x 1.0 is 250MB/s, so yeah with a bit of inefficiency and
> > > overhead not entirely out of the question that 150MB/s is actually the
> > > hw limit. If it's really pcie 1x 1.0, no idea where to check that.
> > > Also might be worth to double-check that the gpu pci bar is listed as
> > > wc in debugfs/x86/pat_memtype_list.
> >
> > Here is some dump of the device info and the pat_memtype_list, while it is
> > running other 0day task:
>
> Looks all good, I guess Dave is right with this probably only being a
> real slow, real old pcie link, plus maybe some inefficiencies in the
> mapping. Your 150MB/s, was that just the copy, or did you include all
> the setup/map/unmap/teardown too in your measurement in the trace?

Following is the breakdown, the 19240 us is the memory copy time

The drm_fb_helper_dirty_work() calls sequentially
1. drm_client_buffer_vmap (290 us)
2. drm_fb_helper_dirty_blit_real (19240 us)
3. helper->fb->funcs->dirty() ---> NULL for mgag200 driver
4. drm_client_buffer_vunmap (215 us)

Thanks,
Feng

> -Daniel
>
> >
> > controller info
> > =================
> > 03:00.0 VGA compatible controller: Matrox Electronics Systems Ltd. MGA G200e [Pilot] ServerEngines (SEP1) (rev 05) (prog-if 00 [VGA controller])
> > Subsystem: Intel Corporation MGA G200e [Pilot] ServerEngines (SEP1)
> > Control: I/O+ Mem+ BusMaster- SpecCycle- MemWINV- VGASnoop- ParErr- Stepping- SERR- FastB2B- DisINTx-
> > Status: Cap+ 66MHz- UDF- FastB2B- ParErr- DEVSEL=fast >TAbort- <TAbort- <MAbort- >SERR- <PERR- INTx-
> > Interrupt: pin A routed to IRQ 16
> > NUMA node: 0
> > Region 0: Memory at d0000000 (32-bit, prefetchable) [size=16M]
> > Region 1: Memory at d1800000 (32-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=16K]
> > Region 2: Memory at d1000000 (32-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=8M]
> > Expansion ROM at 000c0000 [disabled] [size=128K]
> > Capabilities: [dc] Power Management version 2
> > Flags: PMEClk- DSI+ D1- D2- AuxCurrent=0mA PME(D0-,D1-,D2-,D3hot-,D3cold-)
> > Status: D0 NoSoftRst- PME-Enable- DSel=0 DScale=0 PME-
> > Capabilities: [e4] Express (v1) Legacy Endpoint, MSI 00
> > DevCap: MaxPayload 256 bytes, PhantFunc 0, Latency L0s <64ns, L1 <1us
> > ExtTag- AttnBtn- AttnInd- PwrInd- RBE- FLReset-
> > DevCtl: Report errors: Correctable- Non-Fatal- Fatal- Unsupported-
> > RlxdOrd+ ExtTag- PhantFunc- AuxPwr- NoSnoop-
> > MaxPayload 128 bytes, MaxReadReq 128 bytes
> > DevSta: CorrErr+ UncorrErr+ FatalErr- UnsuppReq+ AuxPwr- TransPend-
> > LnkCap: Port #0, Speed 2.5GT/s, Width x1, ASPM L0s, Exit Latency L0s <64ns, L1 <1us
> > ClockPM- Surprise- LLActRep- BwNot- ASPMOptComp-
> > LnkCtl: ASPM Disabled; RCB 64 bytes Disabled- CommClk+
> > ExtSynch- ClockPM- AutWidDis- BWInt- AutBWInt-
> > LnkSta: Speed 2.5GT/s, Width x1, TrErr- Train- SlotClk+ DLActive- BWMgmt- ABWMgmt-
> > Capabilities: [54] MSI: Enable- Count=1/1 Maskable- 64bit-
> > Address: 00000000 Data: 0000
> > Kernel driver in use: mgag200
> > Kernel modules: mgag200
> >
> >
> > Related pat setting
> > ===================
> > uncached-minus @ 0xc0000000-0xc0001000
> > uncached-minus @ 0xc0000000-0xd0000000
> > uncached-minus @ 0xc0008000-0xc0009000
> > uncached-minus @ 0xc0009000-0xc000a000
> > uncached-minus @ 0xc0010000-0xc0011000
> > uncached-minus @ 0xc0011000-0xc0012000
> > uncached-minus @ 0xc0012000-0xc0013000
> > uncached-minus @ 0xc0013000-0xc0014000
> > uncached-minus @ 0xc0018000-0xc0019000
> > uncached-minus @ 0xc0019000-0xc001a000
> > uncached-minus @ 0xc001a000-0xc001b000
> > write-combining @ 0xd0000000-0xd0300000
> > write-combining @ 0xd0000000-0xd1000000
> > uncached-minus @ 0xd1800000-0xd1804000
> > uncached-minus @ 0xd1900000-0xd1980000
> > uncached-minus @ 0xd1980000-0xd1981000
> > uncached-minus @ 0xd1a00000-0xd1a80000
> > uncached-minus @ 0xd1a80000-0xd1a81000
> > uncached-minus @ 0xd1f10000-0xd1f11000
> > uncached-minus @ 0xd1f11000-0xd1f12000
> > uncached-minus @ 0xd1f12000-0xd1f13000
> >
> > Host bridge info
> > ================
> > 00:00.0 Host bridge: Intel Corporation Device 7853
> > Subsystem: Intel Corporation Device 0000
> > Control: I/O- Mem- BusMaster- SpecCycle- MemWINV- VGASnoop- ParErr- Stepping- SERR- FastB2B- DisINTx+
> > Status: Cap+ 66MHz- UDF- FastB2B- ParErr- DEVSEL=fast >TAbort+ <TAbort- <MAbort- >SERR- <PERR- INTx-
> > Interrupt: pin A routed to IRQ 0
> > NUMA node: 0
> > Capabilities: [90] Express (v2) Root Port (Slot-), MSI 00
> > DevCap: MaxPayload 128 bytes, PhantFunc 0
> > ExtTag- RBE+
> > DevCtl: Report errors: Correctable- Non-Fatal- Fatal- Unsupported-
> > RlxdOrd- ExtTag- PhantFunc- AuxPwr- NoSnoop-
> > MaxPayload 128 bytes, MaxReadReq 128 bytes
> > DevSta: CorrErr- UncorrErr- FatalErr- UnsuppReq- AuxPwr- TransPend-
> > LnkCap: Port #0, Speed 2.5GT/s, Width x4, ASPM L1, Exit Latency L0s <512ns, L1 <4us
> > ClockPM- Surprise+ LLActRep+ BwNot+ ASPMOptComp+
> > LnkCtl: ASPM Disabled; RCB 64 bytes Disabled- CommClk-
> > ExtSynch- ClockPM- AutWidDis- BWInt- AutBWInt-
> > LnkSta: Speed unknown, Width x0, TrErr- Train- SlotClk- DLActive- BWMgmt- ABWMgmt-
> > RootCtl: ErrCorrectable+ ErrNon-Fatal+ ErrFatal+ PMEIntEna- CRSVisible-
> > RootCap: CRSVisible-
> > RootSta: PME ReqID 0000, PMEStatus- PMEPending-
> > DevCap2: Completion Timeout: Range BCD, TimeoutDis+, LTR-, OBFF Not Supported ARIFwd-
> > DevCtl2: Completion Timeout: 50us to 50ms, TimeoutDis-, LTR-, OBFF Disabled ARIFwd-
> > LnkCtl2: Target Link Speed: 2.5GT/s, EnterCompliance- SpeedDis-
> > Transmit Margin: Normal Operating Range, EnterModifiedCompliance- ComplianceSOS-
> > Compliance De-emphasis: -6dB
> > LnkSta2: Current De-emphasis Level: -6dB, EqualizationComplete-, EqualizationPhase1-
> > EqualizationPhase2-, EqualizationPhase3-, LinkEqualizationRequest-
> > Capabilities: [e0] Power Management version 3
> > Flags: PMEClk- DSI- D1- D2- AuxCurrent=0mA PME(D0-,D1-,D2-,D3hot-,D3cold-)
> > Status: D0 NoSoftRst+ PME-Enable- DSel=0 DScale=0 PME-
> > Capabilities: [100 v1] Vendor Specific Information: ID=0002 Rev=0 Len=00c <?>
> > Capabilities: [144 v1] Vendor Specific Information: ID=0004 Rev=1 Len=03c <?>
> > Capabilities: [1d0 v1] Vendor Specific Information: ID=0003 Rev=1 Len=00a <?>
> > Capabilities: [250 v1] #19
> > Capabilities: [280 v1] Vendor Specific Information: ID=0005 Rev=3 Len=018 <?>
> > Capabilities: [298 v1] Vendor Specific Information: ID=0007 Rev=0 Len=024 <?>
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Feng
> >
> >
> > >
> > > -Daniel
> > > --
> > > Daniel Vetter
> > > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
> > > +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
>
>
>
> --
> Daniel Vetter
> Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
> +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch

Next message: Peter Zijlstra: "Re: [RFC PATCH 1/9] sched,cgroup: Add interface for latency-nice"
Previous message: Mauro Carvalho Chehab: "Re: [PATCH] media: siano: Use the correct style for SPDX License Identifier"
In reply to: Daniel Vetter: "Re: [LKP] [drm/mgag200] 90f479ae51: vm-scalability.median -18.8% regression"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]