[PATCH] drm/panfrost: Add governor data with pre-defined thresholds

[Lukasz Luba]

On 1/22/21 10:24 AM, Steven Price wrote:
> On 22/01/2021 10:00, Lukasz Luba wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 1/22/21 8:21 AM, Steven Price wrote:
>>> On 21/01/2021 17:04, Lukasz Luba wrote:
>>>> The simple_ondemand devfreq governor uses two thresholds to decide 
>>>> about
>>>> the frequency change: upthreshold, downdifferential. These two tunable
>>>> change the behavior of the governor decision, e.g. how fast to increase
>>>> the frequency or how rapidly limit the frequency. This patch adds 
>>>> needed
>>>> governor data with thresholds values gathered experimentally in 
>>>> different
>>>> workloads.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba at arm.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> This patch aims to improve the panfrost performance in various 
>>>> workloads,
>>>> (benchmarks, games). The simple_ondemand devfreq governor supports
>>>> tunables to tweak the behaviour of the internal algorithm. The default
>>>> values for these two thresholds (90 and 5) do not work well with 
>>>> panfrost.
>>>> These new settings should provide good performance, short latency for
>>>> rising the frequency due to rapid workload change and decent freq slow
>>>> down when the load is decaying. Based on frequency change statistics,
>>>> gathered during experiments, all frequencies are used, depending on
>>>> the load. This provides some power savings (statistically). The highest
>>>> frequency is also used when needed.
>>>>
>>>> Example glmark2 results:
>>>> 1. freq fixed to max: 153
>>>> 2. these new thresholds values (w/ patch): 151
>>>> 3. default governor values (w/o patch): 114
>>>
>>> It would be good to state which platform this is on as this obviously 
>>> can vary depending on the OPPs available.
>>
>> Sorry about that. It was Rock Pi 4B and I have mesa 20.2.4.
>>
>>>
>>> Of course the real fix here would be to improve the utilisation of 
>>> the GPU[1] so we actually hit the 90% threshold more easily (AFAICT 
>>> kbase uses the default 90/5 thresholds), but this seems like a 
>>> reasonable change for now.
>>
>> Agree, improving the scheduler would be the best option. I'll have a
>> look at that patch and why it got this 10% lower performance. Maybe
>> I would find something during testing.
> 
> I'm afraid it'll probably need a fair bit of work to rebase - things 
> have changed around that code. I'm hoping that most of the problem was 
> really around how Mesa was driving the GPU at that time and things 
> should be better. The DDK (hacked to talk Panfrost ioctls) saw a 
> performance improvement.
> 
> Let me know if you hit problems and need any help.

OK, I will contact you when I face some problems.

> 
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Steven Price <steven.price at arm.com>
>>
>> Thank you for the review. I guess this patch would go through drm tree?
> 
> Yes, I'll push it to drm-misc-next later.

Thank you!

Lukasz