[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/gt: Limit frequency drop to RPe on parking

[Rodrigo Vivi]

On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 06:35:21PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
> We treat idling the GT (intel_rps_park) as a downclock event, and reduce
> the frequency we intend to restart the GT with. Since the two workloads
> are likely related (e.g. a compositor rendering every 16ms), we want to
> carry the frequency and load information from across the idling.
> However, we do also need to update the frequencies so that workloads
> that run for less than 1ms are autotuned by RPS (otherwise we leave
> compositors running at max clocks, draining excess power). Conversely,
> if we try to run too slowly, the next workload has to run longer. Since
> there is a hysteresis in the power graph, below a certain frequency
> running a short workload for longer consumes more energy than running it
> slightly higher for less time. The exact balance point is unknown
> beforehand, but measurements with 30fps media playback indicate that RPe
> is a better choice.
> 
> Reported-by: Edward Baker <edward.baker at intel.com>
> Fixes: 043cd2d14ede ("drm/i915/gt: Leave rps->cur_freq on unpark")
> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>
> Cc: Edward Baker <edward.baker at intel.com>
> Cc: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti at intel.com>
> Cc: Lyude Paul <lyude at redhat.com>
> Cc: <stable at vger.kernel.org> # v5.8+
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_rps.c | 4 ++++
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_rps.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_rps.c
> index b13e7845d483..f74d5e09e176 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_rps.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_rps.c
> @@ -907,6 +907,10 @@ void intel_rps_park(struct intel_rps *rps)
>  		adj = -2;
>  	rps->last_adj = adj;
>  	rps->cur_freq = max_t(int, rps->cur_freq + adj, rps->min_freq);
> +	if (rps->cur_freq < rps->efficient_freq) {
> +		rps->cur_freq = rps->efficient_freq;
> +		rps->last_adj = 0;

this is indeed the smallest fix we can propagate:


Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi at intel.com>

but I wonder now if we couldn't simply kill the last_adj now and always go
with the rpe on park/unpark

> +	}
>  
>  	GT_TRACE(rps_to_gt(rps), "park:%x\n", rps->cur_freq);
>  }
> -- 
> 2.20.1
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx