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

Chen, Rong A rong.a.chen at intel.com
Tue Aug 6 12:59:27 UTC 2019


Hi,

On 8/5/2019 6:25 PM, Thomas Zimmermann wrote:
> Hi
>
> Am 05.08.19 um 09:28 schrieb Rong Chen:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 8/5/19 3:02 PM, Feng Tang wrote:
>>> Hi Thomas,
>>>
>>> On Sun, Aug 04, 2019 at 08:39:19PM +0200, Thomas Zimmermann wrote:
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>> I did some further analysis on this problem and found that the blinking
>>>> cursor affects performance of the vm-scalability test case.
>>>>
>>>> I only have a 4-core machine, so scalability is not really testable. Yet
>>>> I see the effects of running vm-scalibility against drm-tip, a revert of
>>>> the mgag200 patch and the vmap fixes that I posted a few days ago.
>>>>
>>>> After reverting the mgag200 patch, running the test as described in the
>>>> report
>>>>
>>>>     bin/lkp run job.yaml
>>>>
>>>> gives results like
>>>>
>>>>     2019-08-02 19:34:37  ./case-anon-cow-seq-hugetlb
>>>>     2019-08-02 19:34:37  ./usemem --runtime 300 -n 4 --prealloc
>>>> --prefault
>>>>       -O -U 815395225
>>>>     917319627 bytes / 756534 usecs = 1184110 KB/s
>>>>     917319627 bytes / 764675 usecs = 1171504 KB/s
>>>>     917319627 bytes / 766414 usecs = 1168846 KB/s
>>>>     917319627 bytes / 777990 usecs = 1151454 KB/s
>>>>
>>>> Running the test against current drm-tip gives slightly worse results,
>>>> such as.
>>>>
>>>>     2019-08-03 19:17:06  ./case-anon-cow-seq-hugetlb
>>>>     2019-08-03 19:17:06  ./usemem --runtime 300 -n 4 --prealloc
>>>> --prefault
>>>>       -O -U 815394406
>>>>     917318700 bytes / 871607 usecs = 1027778 KB/s
>>>>     917318700 bytes / 894173 usecs = 1001840 KB/s
>>>>     917318700 bytes / 919694 usecs = 974040 KB/s
>>>>     917318700 bytes / 923341 usecs = 970193 KB/s
>>>>
>>>> The test puts out roughly one result per second. Strangely sending the
>>>> output to /dev/null can make results significantly worse.
>>>>
>>>>     bin/lkp run job.yaml > /dev/null
>>>>
>>>>     2019-08-03 19:23:04  ./case-anon-cow-seq-hugetlb
>>>>     2019-08-03 19:23:04  ./usemem --runtime 300 -n 4 --prealloc
>>>> --prefault
>>>>       -O -U 815394406
>>>>     917318700 bytes / 1207358 usecs = 741966 KB/s
>>>>     917318700 bytes / 1210456 usecs = 740067 KB/s
>>>>     917318700 bytes / 1216572 usecs = 736346 KB/s
>>>>     917318700 bytes / 1239152 usecs = 722929 KB/s
>>>>
>>>> I realized that there's still a blinking cursor on the screen, which I
>>>> disabled with
>>>>
>>>>     tput civis
>>>>
>>>> or alternatively
>>>>
>>>>     echo 0 > /sys/devices/virtual/graphics/fbcon/cursor_blink
>>>>
>>>> Running the the test now gives the original or even better results,
>>>> such as
>>>>
>>>>     bin/lkp run job.yaml > /dev/null
>>>>
>>>>     2019-08-03 19:29:17  ./case-anon-cow-seq-hugetlb
>>>>     2019-08-03 19:29:17  ./usemem --runtime 300 -n 4 --prealloc
>>>> --prefault
>>>>       -O -U 815394406
>>>>     917318700 bytes / 659419 usecs = 1358497 KB/s
>>>>     917318700 bytes / 659658 usecs = 1358005 KB/s
>>>>     917318700 bytes / 659916 usecs = 1357474 KB/s
>>>>     917318700 bytes / 660168 usecs = 1356956 KB/s
>>>>
>>>> Rong, Feng, could you confirm this by disabling the cursor or blinking?
>>> Glad to know this method restored the drop. Rong is running the case.
>> I set "echo 0 > /sys/devices/virtual/graphics/fbcon/cursor_blink" for
>> both commits,
>> and the regression has no obvious change.
> Ah, I see. Thank you for testing. There are two questions that come to
> my mind: did you send the regular output to /dev/null? And what happens
> if you disable the cursor with 'tput civis'?

I didn't send the output to /dev/null because we need to collect data 
from the output,
Actually we run the benchmark as a background process, do we need to 
disable the cursor and test again?

Best Regards,
Rong Chen

>
> If there is absolutely nothing changing on the screen, I don't see how
> the regression could persist.
>
> Best regards
> Thomas
>
>
>> commit:
>>    f1f8555dfb9 drm/bochs: Use shadow buffer for bochs framebuffer console
>>    90f479ae51a drm/mgag200: Replace struct mga_fbdev with generic
>> framebuffer emulation
>>
>> f1f8555dfb9a70a2  90f479ae51afa45efab97afdde testcase/testparams/testbox
>> ----------------  -------------------------- ---------------------------
>>           %stddev      change         %stddev
>>               \          |                \
>>       43394             -20%      34575 ±  3%
>> vm-scalability/performance-300s-8T-anon-cow-seq-hugetlb/lkp-knm01
>>       43393             -20%      34575        GEO-MEAN
>> vm-scalability.median
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Rong Chen
>>
>>> While I have another finds, as I noticed your patch changed the bpp from
>>> 24 to 32, I had a patch to change it back to 24, and run the case in
>>> the weekend, the -18% regrssion was reduced to about -5%. Could this
>>> be related?
>>>
>>> commit:
>>>     f1f8555dfb9 drm/bochs: Use shadow buffer for bochs framebuffer console
>>>     90f479ae51a drm/mgag200: Replace struct mga_fbdev with generic
>>> framebuffer emulation
>>>     01e75fea0d5 mgag200: restore the depth back to 24
>>>
>>> f1f8555dfb9a70a2 90f479ae51afa45efab97afdde9 01e75fea0d5ff39d3e588c20ec5
>>> ---------------- --------------------------- ---------------------------
>>>        43921 ±  2%     -18.3%      35884            -4.8%
>>> 41826        vm-scalability.median
>>>     14889337           -17.5%   12291029            -4.1%
>>> 14278574        vm-scalability.throughput
>>>    commit 01e75fea0d5ff39d3e588c20ec52e7a4e6588a74
>>> Author: Feng Tang <feng.tang at intel.com>
>>> Date:   Fri Aug 2 15:09:19 2019 +0800
>>>
>>>       mgag200: restore the depth back to 24
>>>            Signed-off-by: Feng Tang <feng.tang at intel.com>
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/mgag200/mgag200_main.c
>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/mgag200/mgag200_main.c
>>> index a977333..ac8f6c9 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/mgag200/mgag200_main.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/mgag200/mgag200_main.c
>>> @@ -162,7 +162,7 @@ int mgag200_driver_load(struct drm_device *dev,
>>> unsigned long flags)
>>>        if (IS_G200_SE(mdev) && mdev->mc.vram_size < (2048*1024))
>>>            dev->mode_config.preferred_depth = 16;
>>>        else
>>> -        dev->mode_config.preferred_depth = 32;
>>> +        dev->mode_config.preferred_depth = 24;
>>>        dev->mode_config.prefer_shadow = 1;
>>>          r = mgag200_modeset_init(mdev);
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Feng
>>>
>>>> The difference between mgag200's original fbdev support and generic
>>>> fbdev emulation is generic fbdev's worker task that updates the VRAM
>>>> buffer from the shadow buffer. mgag200 does this immediately, but relies
>>>> on drm_can_sleep(), which is deprecated.
>>>>
>>>> I think that the worker task interferes with the test case, as the
>>>> worker has been in fbdev emulation since forever and no performance
>>>> regressions have been reported so far.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So unless there's a report where this problem happens in a real-world
>>>> use case, I'd like to keep code as it is. And apparently there's always
>>>> the workaround of disabling the cursor blinking.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards
>>>> Thomas
>>>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LKP mailing list
> LKP at lists.01.org
> https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/lkp

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/attachments/20190806/7f14538b/attachment.html>


More information about the dri-devel mailing list