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

Rong Chen rong.a.chen at intel.com
Thu Aug 1 06:19:53 UTC 2019


On 7/31/19 6:21 PM, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On 2019-07-31 11:25 a.m., Huang, Ying wrote:
>> Hi, Daniel,
>> Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch> writes:
>>> On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 10:27 PM Dave Airlie <airlied at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 at 05:00, Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 8:50 PM Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann at suse.de> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>> Am 30.07.19 um 20:12 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 7:50 PM Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann at suse.de> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Am 29.07.19 um 11:51 schrieb kernel test robot:
>>>>>>>>> Greeting,
>>>>>>>>> FYI, we noticed a -18.8% regression of vm-scalability.median due to commit:>
>>>>>>>>> commit: 90f479ae51afa45efab97afdde9b94b9660dd3e4 ("drm/mgag200: Replace struct mga_fbdev with generic framebuffer emulation")
>>>>>>>>> https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git master
>>>>>>>> Daniel, Noralf, we may have to revert this patch.
>>>>>>>> I expected some change in display performance, but not in VM. Since it's
>>>>>>>> a server chipset, probably no one cares much about display performance.
>>>>>>>> So that seemed like a good trade-off for re-using shared code.
>>>>>>>> Part of the patch set is that the generic fb emulation now maps and
>>>>>>>> unmaps the fbdev BO when updating the screen. I guess that's the cause
>>>>>>>> of the performance regression. And it should be visible with other
>>>>>>>> drivers as well if they use a shadow FB for fbdev emulation.
>>>>>>> For fbcon we should need to do any maps/unamps at all, this is for the
>>>>>>> fbdev mmap support only. If the testcase mentioned here tests fbdev
>>>>>>> mmap handling it's pretty badly misnamed :-) And as long as you don't
>>>>>>> have an fbdev mmap there shouldn't be any impact at all.
>>>>>> The ast and mgag200 have only a few MiB of VRAM, so we have to get the
>>>>>> fbdev BO out if it's not being displayed. If not being mapped, it can be
>>>>>> evicted and make room for X, etc.
>>>>>> To make this work, the BO's memory is mapped and unmapped in
>>>>>> drm_fb_helper_dirty_work() before being updated from the shadow FB. [1]
>>>>>> That fbdev mapping is established on each screen update, more or less.
>>>>>>  From my (yet unverified) understanding, this causes the performance
>>>>>> regression in the VM code.
>>>>>> The original code in mgag200 used to kmap the fbdev BO while it's being
>>>>>> displayed; [2] and the drawing code only mapped it when necessary (i.e.,
>>>>>> not being display). [3]
>>>>> Hm yeah, this vmap/vunmap is going to be pretty bad. We indeed should
>>>>> cache this.
>>>>>> I think this could be added for VRAM helpers as well, but it's still a
>>>>>> workaround and non-VRAM drivers might also run into such a performance
>>>>>> regression if they use the fbdev's shadow fb.
>>>>> Yeah agreed, fbdev emulation should try to cache the vmap.
>>>>>> Noralf mentioned that there are plans for other DRM clients besides the
>>>>>> console. They would as well run into similar problems.
>>>>>>>> The thing is that we'd need another generic fbdev emulation for ast and
>>>>>>>> mgag200 that handles this issue properly.
>>>>>>> Yeah I dont think we want to jump the gun here.  If you can try to
>>>>>>> repro locally and profile where we're wasting cpu time I hope that
>>>>>>> should sched a light what's going wrong here.
>>>>>> I don't have much time ATM and I'm not even officially at work until
>>>>>> late Aug. I'd send you the revert and investigate later. I agree that
>>>>>> using generic fbdev emulation would be preferable.
>>>>> Still not sure that's the right thing to do really. Yes it's a
>>>>> regression, but vm testcases shouldn run a single line of fbcon or drm
>>>>> code. So why this is impacted so heavily by a silly drm change is very
>>>>> confusing to me. We might be papering over a deeper and much more
>>>>> serious issue ...
>>>> It's a regression, the right thing is to revert first and then work
>>>> out the right thing to do.
>>> Sure, but I have no idea whether the testcase is doing something
>>> reasonable. If it's accidentally testing vm scalability of fbdev and
>>> there's no one else doing something this pointless, then it's not a
>>> real bug. Plus I think we're shooting the messenger here.
>>>> It's likely the test runs on the console and printfs stuff out while running.
>>> But why did we not regress the world if a few prints on the console
>>> have such a huge impact? We didn't get an entire stream of mails about
>>> breaking stuff ...
>> The regression seems not related to the commit.  But we have retested
>> and confirmed the regression.  Hard to understand what happens.
> Does the regressed test cause any output on console while it's
> measuring? If so, it's probably accidentally measuring fbcon/DRM code in
> addition to the workload it's trying to measure.

Sorry, I'm not familiar with DRM, we enabled the console to output logs, 
and attached please find the log file.

"Command line: ... console=tty0 earlyprintk=ttyS0,115200 
console=ttyS0,115200 vga=normal rw"

Best Regards,
Rong Chen

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: kmsg.xz
Type: application/x-xz
Size: 82252 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/attachments/20190801/5d029495/attachment-0001.xz>

More information about the dri-devel mailing list