Hi Dirk,
I've been having some huge slowdowns on my box building kernels, and I
took the time to bisect it down to commit
fcb6a15c2e7e76d493e6f91ea889ab40e1c643a4 (intel_pstate: Take core C0
time into account for core busy calculation). With that patch reverted
on Linus's current tree, my build speeds are back up to the normal rate.
The difference is huge, 2 minutes to do a kernel build with that patch
reverted, 8-10 minutes with it applied! With all of the stable kernel
builds and other trees, this is a huge problem for my workload (all I do
is kernel builds it seems...)
I see some patches you marked as "fixes" that you sent to Rafael, do you
want me to test any of those? How am I the only one seeing this
problem, do you need my cpu information or anything else?
Oh, and because of the problems, I'll just drop this patch from the
-stable trees for now, I don't want to pollute them with the issue until
it is resolved properly.
thanks,
greg k-h
On 02/19/2014 02:47 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> Hi Dirk,
>
> I've been having some huge slowdowns on my box building kernels, and I
> took the time to bisect it down to commit
> fcb6a15c2e7e76d493e6f91ea889ab40e1c643a4 (intel_pstate: Take core C0
> time into account for core busy calculation). With that patch reverted
> on Linus's current tree, my build speeds are back up to the normal rate.
>
> The difference is huge, 2 minutes to do a kernel build with that patch
> reverted, 8-10 minutes with it applied! With all of the stable kernel
> builds and other trees, this is a huge problem for my workload (all I do
> is kernel builds it seems...)
>
> I see some patches you marked as "fixes" that you sent to Rafael, do you
> want me to test any of those? How am I the only one seeing this
> problem, do you need my cpu information or anything else?
Can you give me a description of you build system? CPU, number of sockets,
building from/to local media. Any special setup I should use here for my test?
If you have time having the output of turbostat for a build with and
without would be very useful.
On my single socket Sandybridge test system I don't see any difference.
I tested against v3.10.30, v3.12.11 and v3.13.3
>
> Oh, and because of the problems, I'll just drop this patch from the
> -stable trees for now, I don't want to pollute them with the issue until
> it is resolved properly.
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cpufreq" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 04:03:40PM -0800, Dirk Brandewie wrote:
> On 02/19/2014 02:47 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> >Hi Dirk,
> >
> >I've been having some huge slowdowns on my box building kernels, and I
> >took the time to bisect it down to commit
> >fcb6a15c2e7e76d493e6f91ea889ab40e1c643a4 (intel_pstate: Take core C0
> >time into account for core busy calculation). With that patch reverted
> >on Linus's current tree, my build speeds are back up to the normal rate.
> >
> >The difference is huge, 2 minutes to do a kernel build with that patch
> >reverted, 8-10 minutes with it applied! With all of the stable kernel
> >builds and other trees, this is a huge problem for my workload (all I do
> >is kernel builds it seems...)
> >
> >I see some patches you marked as "fixes" that you sent to Rafael, do you
> >want me to test any of those? How am I the only one seeing this
> >problem, do you need my cpu information or anything else?
>
> Can you give me a description of you build system? CPU, number of sockets,
The last processor in /proc/cpuinfo:
processor : 7
vendor_id : GenuineIntel
cpu family : 6
model : 60
model name : Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4770K CPU @ 3.50GHz
stepping : 3
microcode : 0x9
cpu MHz : 3556.464
cache size : 8192 KB
physical id : 0
siblings : 8
core id : 3
cpu cores : 4
apicid : 7
initial apicid : 7
fpu : yes
fpu_exception : yes
cpuid level : 13
wp : yes
flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe syscall nx pdpe1gb rdtscp lm constant_tsc arch_perfmon pebs bts rep_good nopl xtopology nonstop_tsc aperfmperf eagerfpu pni pclmulqdq dtes64 monitor ds_cpl vmx est tm2 ssse3 fma cx16 xtpr pdcm pcid sse4_1 sse4_2 movbe popcnt tsc_deadline_timer aes xsave avx f16c rdrand lahf_lm abm ida arat epb xsaveopt pln pts dtherm tpr_shadow vnmi flexpriority ept vpid fsgsbase tsc_adjust bmi1 avx2 smep bmi2 erms invpcid
bogomips : 7000.78
clflush size : 64
cache_alignment : 64
address sizes : 39 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
> building from/to local media. Any special setup I should use here for my test?
I build on a SSD-like disk (flash media on PCI Express slot), so I
should have almost no i/o time.
I build with 'make -j16'
> If you have time having the output of turbostat for a build with and
> without would be very useful.
$ ./turbostat
turbostat: no /dev/cpu/0/msr
Try "# modprobe msr": No such file or directory
Bah, I'll rebuild with msr and get you that info...
thanks,
greg k-h
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 04:35:37PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 04:03:40PM -0800, Dirk Brandewie wrote:
> > On 02/19/2014 02:47 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > >Hi Dirk,
> > >
> > >I've been having some huge slowdowns on my box building kernels, and I
> > >took the time to bisect it down to commit
> > >fcb6a15c2e7e76d493e6f91ea889ab40e1c643a4 (intel_pstate: Take core C0
> > >time into account for core busy calculation). With that patch reverted
> > >on Linus's current tree, my build speeds are back up to the normal rate.
> > >
> > >The difference is huge, 2 minutes to do a kernel build with that patch
> > >reverted, 8-10 minutes with it applied! With all of the stable kernel
> > >builds and other trees, this is a huge problem for my workload (all I do
> > >is kernel builds it seems...)
> > >
> > >I see some patches you marked as "fixes" that you sent to Rafael, do you
> > >want me to test any of those? How am I the only one seeing this
> > >problem, do you need my cpu information or anything else?
> >
> > Can you give me a description of you build system? CPU, number of sockets,
>
> The last processor in /proc/cpuinfo:
>
> processor : 7
> vendor_id : GenuineIntel
> cpu family : 6
> model : 60
> model name : Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4770K CPU @ 3.50GHz
> stepping : 3
> microcode : 0x9
> cpu MHz : 3556.464
> cache size : 8192 KB
> physical id : 0
> siblings : 8
> core id : 3
> cpu cores : 4
> apicid : 7
> initial apicid : 7
> fpu : yes
> fpu_exception : yes
> cpuid level : 13
> wp : yes
> flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe syscall nx pdpe1gb rdtscp lm constant_tsc arch_perfmon pebs bts rep_good nopl xtopology nonstop_tsc aperfmperf eagerfpu pni pclmulqdq dtes64 monitor ds_cpl vmx est tm2 ssse3 fma cx16 xtpr pdcm pcid sse4_1 sse4_2 movbe popcnt tsc_deadline_timer aes xsave avx f16c rdrand lahf_lm abm ida arat epb xsaveopt pln pts dtherm tpr_shadow vnmi flexpriority ept vpid fsgsbase tsc_adjust bmi1 avx2 smep bmi2 erms invpcid
> bogomips : 7000.78
> clflush size : 64
> cache_alignment : 64
> address sizes : 39 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
>
> > building from/to local media. Any special setup I should use here for my test?
>
> I build on a SSD-like disk (flash media on PCI Express slot), so I
> should have almost no i/o time.
>
> I build with 'make -j16'
>
> > If you have time having the output of turbostat for a build with and
> > without would be very useful.
>
> $ ./turbostat
> turbostat: no /dev/cpu/0/msr
> Try "# modprobe msr": No such file or directory
>
> Bah, I'll rebuild with msr and get you that info...
Attached is two files, "fast_build.txt" is when your patch is reverted,
and building a kernel takes only 2 minutes. "slow_build.txt" is when
the patch is not reverted, using Linus's latest tree, and I stopped it
after a while because I got bored :)
I think the numbers in these two files shows the real problem that is
happening...
If there's anything else you need me to test, please let me know.
thanks,
greg k-h
On 02/19/2014 04:51 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 04:35:37PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 04:03:40PM -0800, Dirk Brandewie wrote:
>>> On 02/19/2014 02:47 PM, Greg KH wrote:
>>>> Hi Dirk,
>>>>
>>>> I've been having some huge slowdowns on my box building kernels, and I
>>>> took the time to bisect it down to commit
>>>> fcb6a15c2e7e76d493e6f91ea889ab40e1c643a4 (intel_pstate: Take core C0
>>>> time into account for core busy calculation). With that patch reverted
>>>> on Linus's current tree, my build speeds are back up to the normal rate.
>>>>
>>>> The difference is huge, 2 minutes to do a kernel build with that patch
>>>> reverted, 8-10 minutes with it applied! With all of the stable kernel
>>>> builds and other trees, this is a huge problem for my workload (all I do
>>>> is kernel builds it seems...)
>>>>
>>>> I see some patches you marked as "fixes" that you sent to Rafael, do you
>>>> want me to test any of those? How am I the only one seeing this
>>>> problem, do you need my cpu information or anything else?
>>>
>>> Can you give me a description of you build system? CPU, number of sockets,
>>
>> The last processor in /proc/cpuinfo:
>>
>> processor : 7
>> vendor_id : GenuineIntel
>> cpu family : 6
>> model : 60
>> model name : Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4770K CPU @ 3.50GHz
>> stepping : 3
>> microcode : 0x9
>> cpu MHz : 3556.464
>> cache size : 8192 KB
>> physical id : 0
>> siblings : 8
>> core id : 3
>> cpu cores : 4
>> apicid : 7
>> initial apicid : 7
>> fpu : yes
>> fpu_exception : yes
>> cpuid level : 13
>> wp : yes
>> flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe syscall nx pdpe1gb rdtscp lm constant_tsc arch_perfmon pebs bts rep_good nopl xtopology nonstop_tsc aperfmperf eagerfpu pni pclmulqdq dtes64 monitor ds_cpl vmx est tm2 ssse3 fma cx16 xtpr pdcm pcid sse4_1 sse4_2 movbe popcnt tsc_deadline_timer aes xsave avx f16c rdrand lahf_lm abm ida arat epb xsaveopt pln pts dtherm tpr_shadow vnmi flexpriority ept vpid fsgsbase tsc_adjust bmi1 avx2 smep bmi2 erms invpcid
>> bogomips : 7000.78
>> clflush size : 64
>> cache_alignment : 64
>> address sizes : 39 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
>>
>>> building from/to local media. Any special setup I should use here for my test?
>>
>> I build on a SSD-like disk (flash media on PCI Express slot), so I
>> should have almost no i/o time.
>>
>> I build with 'make -j16'
>>
>>> If you have time having the output of turbostat for a build with and
>>> without would be very useful.
>>
>> $ ./turbostat
>> turbostat: no /dev/cpu/0/msr
>> Try "# modprobe msr": No such file or directory
>>
>> Bah, I'll rebuild with msr and get you that info...
>
> Attached is two files, "fast_build.txt" is when your patch is reverted,
> and building a kernel takes only 2 minutes. "slow_build.txt" is when
> the patch is not reverted, using Linus's latest tree, and I stopped it
> after a while because I got bored :)
>
> I think the numbers in these two files shows the real problem that is
> happening...
For some reason intel_pstate is deciding you have no load and no increasing
the P state :-(
>
> If there's anything else you need me to test, please let me know.
I are running on Linus's tree could you run the following script with the patch
applied and send the output of "perf script".
#! /bin/sh
sudo perf record -C 5 -c 1 -e power:pstate_sample&
sleep .5
foo=$!
taskset -c 5 cat /dev/zero > /dev/null&
bar=$!
sleep 1
kill $bar
sleep .5
sudo kill $foo
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
>
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 06:56:24AM -0800, Dirk Brandewie wrote:
> On 02/19/2014 04:51 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> >On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 04:35:37PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> >>On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 04:03:40PM -0800, Dirk Brandewie wrote:
> >>>On 02/19/2014 02:47 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> >>>>Hi Dirk,
> >>>>
> >>>>I've been having some huge slowdowns on my box building kernels, and I
> >>>>took the time to bisect it down to commit
> >>>>fcb6a15c2e7e76d493e6f91ea889ab40e1c643a4 (intel_pstate: Take core C0
> >>>>time into account for core busy calculation). With that patch reverted
> >>>>on Linus's current tree, my build speeds are back up to the normal rate.
> >>>>
> >>>>The difference is huge, 2 minutes to do a kernel build with that patch
> >>>>reverted, 8-10 minutes with it applied! With all of the stable kernel
> >>>>builds and other trees, this is a huge problem for my workload (all I do
> >>>>is kernel builds it seems...)
> >>>>
> >>>>I see some patches you marked as "fixes" that you sent to Rafael, do you
> >>>>want me to test any of those? How am I the only one seeing this
> >>>>problem, do you need my cpu information or anything else?
> >>>
> >>>Can you give me a description of you build system? CPU, number of sockets,
> >>
> >>The last processor in /proc/cpuinfo:
> >>
> >>processor : 7
> >>vendor_id : GenuineIntel
> >>cpu family : 6
> >>model : 60
> >>model name : Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4770K CPU @ 3.50GHz
> >>stepping : 3
> >>microcode : 0x9
> >>cpu MHz : 3556.464
> >>cache size : 8192 KB
> >>physical id : 0
> >>siblings : 8
> >>core id : 3
> >>cpu cores : 4
> >>apicid : 7
> >>initial apicid : 7
> >>fpu : yes
> >>fpu_exception : yes
> >>cpuid level : 13
> >>wp : yes
> >>flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe syscall nx pdpe1gb rdtscp lm constant_tsc arch_perfmon pebs bts rep_good nopl xtopology nonstop_tsc aperfmperf eagerfpu pni pclmulqdq dtes64 monitor ds_cpl vmx est tm2 ssse3 fma cx16 xtpr pdcm pcid sse4_1 sse4_2 movbe popcnt tsc_deadline_timer aes xsave avx f16c rdrand lahf_lm abm ida arat epb xsaveopt pln pts dtherm tpr_shadow vnmi flexpriority ept vpid fsgsbase tsc_adjust bmi1 avx2 smep bmi2 erms invpcid
> >>bogomips : 7000.78
> >>clflush size : 64
> >>cache_alignment : 64
> >>address sizes : 39 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
> >>
> >>>building from/to local media. Any special setup I should use here for my test?
> >>
> >>I build on a SSD-like disk (flash media on PCI Express slot), so I
> >>should have almost no i/o time.
> >>
> >>I build with 'make -j16'
> >>
> >>>If you have time having the output of turbostat for a build with and
> >>>without would be very useful.
> >>
> >> $ ./turbostat
> >> turbostat: no /dev/cpu/0/msr
> >> Try "# modprobe msr": No such file or directory
> >>
> >>Bah, I'll rebuild with msr and get you that info...
> >
> >Attached is two files, "fast_build.txt" is when your patch is reverted,
> >and building a kernel takes only 2 minutes. "slow_build.txt" is when
> >the patch is not reverted, using Linus's latest tree, and I stopped it
> >after a while because I got bored :)
> >
> >I think the numbers in these two files shows the real problem that is
> >happening...
>
> For some reason intel_pstate is deciding you have no load and no increasing
> the P state :-(
> >
> >If there's anything else you need me to test, please let me know.
>
> I are running on Linus's tree could you run the following script with the patch
> applied and send the output of "perf script".
>
> #! /bin/sh
>
> sudo perf record -C 5 -c 1 -e power:pstate_sample&
> sleep .5
> foo=$!
> taskset -c 5 cat /dev/zero > /dev/null&
> bar=$!
> sleep 1
> kill $bar
> sleep .5
> sudo kill $foo
The output of this is attached below as "bad.perf", and for comparison,
I ran this with the patch reverted, which is the result in the
"good.perf" file below.
Anything else I can test?
thanks,
greg k-h
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 10:10:46AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 06:56:24AM -0800, Dirk Brandewie wrote:
> > On 02/19/2014 04:51 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > >On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 04:35:37PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > >>On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 04:03:40PM -0800, Dirk Brandewie wrote:
> > >>>On 02/19/2014 02:47 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > >>>>Hi Dirk,
> > >>>>
> > >>>>I've been having some huge slowdowns on my box building kernels, and I
> > >>>>took the time to bisect it down to commit
> > >>>>fcb6a15c2e7e76d493e6f91ea889ab40e1c643a4 (intel_pstate: Take core C0
> > >>>>time into account for core busy calculation). With that patch reverted
> > >>>>on Linus's current tree, my build speeds are back up to the normal rate.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>The difference is huge, 2 minutes to do a kernel build with that patch
> > >>>>reverted, 8-10 minutes with it applied! With all of the stable kernel
> > >>>>builds and other trees, this is a huge problem for my workload (all I do
> > >>>>is kernel builds it seems...)
> > >>>>
> > >>>>I see some patches you marked as "fixes" that you sent to Rafael, do you
> > >>>>want me to test any of those? How am I the only one seeing this
> > >>>>problem, do you need my cpu information or anything else?
> > >>>
> > >>>Can you give me a description of you build system? CPU, number of sockets,
> > >>
> > >>The last processor in /proc/cpuinfo:
> > >>
> > >>processor : 7
> > >>vendor_id : GenuineIntel
> > >>cpu family : 6
> > >>model : 60
> > >>model name : Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4770K CPU @ 3.50GHz
> > >>stepping : 3
> > >>microcode : 0x9
> > >>cpu MHz : 3556.464
> > >>cache size : 8192 KB
> > >>physical id : 0
> > >>siblings : 8
> > >>core id : 3
> > >>cpu cores : 4
> > >>apicid : 7
> > >>initial apicid : 7
> > >>fpu : yes
> > >>fpu_exception : yes
> > >>cpuid level : 13
> > >>wp : yes
> > >>flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe syscall nx pdpe1gb rdtscp lm constant_tsc arch_perfmon pebs bts rep_good nopl xtopology nonstop_tsc aperfmperf eagerfpu pni pclmulqdq dtes64 monitor ds_cpl vmx est tm2 ssse3 fma cx16 xtpr pdcm pcid sse4_1 sse4_2 movbe popcnt tsc_deadline_timer aes xsave avx f16c rdrand lahf_lm abm ida arat epb xsaveopt pln pts dtherm tpr_shadow vnmi flexpriority ept vpid fsgsbase tsc_adjust bmi1 avx2 smep bmi2 erms invpcid
> > >>bogomips : 7000.78
> > >>clflush size : 64
> > >>cache_alignment : 64
> > >>address sizes : 39 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
> > >>
> > >>>building from/to local media. Any special setup I should use here for my test?
> > >>
> > >>I build on a SSD-like disk (flash media on PCI Express slot), so I
> > >>should have almost no i/o time.
> > >>
> > >>I build with 'make -j16'
> > >>
> > >>>If you have time having the output of turbostat for a build with and
> > >>>without would be very useful.
> > >>
> > >> $ ./turbostat
> > >> turbostat: no /dev/cpu/0/msr
> > >> Try "# modprobe msr": No such file or directory
> > >>
> > >>Bah, I'll rebuild with msr and get you that info...
> > >
> > >Attached is two files, "fast_build.txt" is when your patch is reverted,
> > >and building a kernel takes only 2 minutes. "slow_build.txt" is when
> > >the patch is not reverted, using Linus's latest tree, and I stopped it
> > >after a while because I got bored :)
> > >
> > >I think the numbers in these two files shows the real problem that is
> > >happening...
> >
> > For some reason intel_pstate is deciding you have no load and no increasing
> > the P state :-(
> > >
> > >If there's anything else you need me to test, please let me know.
> >
> > I are running on Linus's tree could you run the following script with the patch
> > applied and send the output of "perf script".
> >
> > #! /bin/sh
> >
> > sudo perf record -C 5 -c 1 -e power:pstate_sample&
> > sleep .5
> > foo=$!
> > taskset -c 5 cat /dev/zero > /dev/null&
> > bar=$!
> > sleep 1
> > kill $bar
> > sleep .5
> > sudo kill $foo
>
> The output of this is attached below as "bad.perf", and for comparison,
> I ran this with the patch reverted, which is the result in the
> "good.perf" file below.
>
> Anything else I can test?
Any progress on this?
thanks,
greg k-h
On 02/24/2014 02:37 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 10:10:46AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 06:56:24AM -0800, Dirk Brandewie wrote:
>>> On 02/19/2014 04:51 PM, Greg KH wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 04:35:37PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 04:03:40PM -0800, Dirk Brandewie wrote:
>>>>>> On 02/19/2014 02:47 PM, Greg KH wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Dirk,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've been having some huge slowdowns on my box building kernels, and I
>>>>>>> took the time to bisect it down to commit
>>>>>>> fcb6a15c2e7e76d493e6f91ea889ab40e1c643a4 (intel_pstate: Take core C0
>>>>>>> time into account for core busy calculation). With that patch reverted
>>>>>>> on Linus's current tree, my build speeds are back up to the normal rate.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The difference is huge, 2 minutes to do a kernel build with that patch
>>>>>>> reverted, 8-10 minutes with it applied! With all of the stable kernel
>>>>>>> builds and other trees, this is a huge problem for my workload (all I do
>>>>>>> is kernel builds it seems...)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I see some patches you marked as "fixes" that you sent to Rafael, do you
>>>>>>> want me to test any of those? How am I the only one seeing this
>>>>>>> problem, do you need my cpu information or anything else?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can you give me a description of you build system? CPU, number of sockets,
>>>>>
>>>>> The last processor in /proc/cpuinfo:
>>>>>
>>>>> processor : 7
>>>>> vendor_id : GenuineIntel
>>>>> cpu family : 6
>>>>> model : 60
>>>>> model name : Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4770K CPU @ 3.50GHz
>>>>> stepping : 3
>>>>> microcode : 0x9
>>>>> cpu MHz : 3556.464
>>>>> cache size : 8192 KB
>>>>> physical id : 0
>>>>> siblings : 8
>>>>> core id : 3
>>>>> cpu cores : 4
>>>>> apicid : 7
>>>>> initial apicid : 7
>>>>> fpu : yes
>>>>> fpu_exception : yes
>>>>> cpuid level : 13
>>>>> wp : yes
>>>>> flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe syscall nx pdpe1gb rdtscp lm constant_tsc arch_perfmon pebs bts rep_good nopl xtopology nonstop_tsc aperfmperf eagerfpu pni pclmulqdq dtes64 monitor ds_cpl vmx est tm2 ssse3 fma cx16 xtpr pdcm pcid sse4_1 sse4_2 movbe popcnt tsc_deadline_timer aes xsave avx f16c rdrand lahf_lm abm ida arat epb xsaveopt pln pts dtherm tpr_shadow vnmi flexpriority ept vpid fsgsbase tsc_adjust bmi1 avx2 smep bmi2 erms invpcid
>>>>> bogomips : 7000.78
>>>>> clflush size : 64
>>>>> cache_alignment : 64
>>>>> address sizes : 39 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
>>>>>
>>>>>> building from/to local media. Any special setup I should use here for my test?
>>>>>
>>>>> I build on a SSD-like disk (flash media on PCI Express slot), so I
>>>>> should have almost no i/o time.
>>>>>
>>>>> I build with 'make -j16'
>>>>>
>>>>>> If you have time having the output of turbostat for a build with and
>>>>>> without would be very useful.
>>>>>
>>>>> $ ./turbostat
>>>>> turbostat: no /dev/cpu/0/msr
>>>>> Try "# modprobe msr": No such file or directory
>>>>>
>>>>> Bah, I'll rebuild with msr and get you that info...
>>>>
>>>> Attached is two files, "fast_build.txt" is when your patch is reverted,
>>>> and building a kernel takes only 2 minutes. "slow_build.txt" is when
>>>> the patch is not reverted, using Linus's latest tree, and I stopped it
>>>> after a while because I got bored :)
>>>>
>>>> I think the numbers in these two files shows the real problem that is
>>>> happening...
>>>
>>> For some reason intel_pstate is deciding you have no load and no increasing
>>> the P state :-(
>>>>
>>>> If there's anything else you need me to test, please let me know.
>>>
>>> I are running on Linus's tree could you run the following script with the patch
>>> applied and send the output of "perf script".
>>>
>>> #! /bin/sh
>>>
>>> sudo perf record -C 5 -c 1 -e power:pstate_sample&
>>> sleep .5
>>> foo=$!
>>> taskset -c 5 cat /dev/zero > /dev/null&
>>> bar=$!
>>> sleep 1
>>> kill $bar
>>> sleep .5
>>> sudo kill $foo
>>
>> The output of this is attached below as "bad.perf", and for comparison,
>> I ran this with the patch reverted, which is the result in the
>> "good.perf" file below.
>>
>> Anything else I can test?
>
> Any progress on this?
>
Here is the patch I have ATM it has been tested with i7-4770K, i7-2600,
i5-3230M.
I am still waiting for results from the people with Baytrail that were
affected before sending to Rafael.
commit 3eed2b5e48543fa9837a77c067986b4831f8f00f
Author: Dirk Brandewie <[email protected]>
Date: Mon Feb 24 09:11:23 2014 -0800
intel_pstate: Change busy calculation to use fixed point math.
Commit fcb6a15c2e Take core C0 time into account for core busy calculation.
Introduced a regression on some processor SKUs supported by
intel_pstate. This was caused by the truncation caused by using
integer math to calculate core busy and C0 percentages.
References:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/2/19/626
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=70941
Signed-off-by: Dirk Brandewie <[email protected]>
---
drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++----------
1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c b/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
index e908161..2cd36b9 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
@@ -39,9 +39,10 @@
#define BYT_TURBO_RATIOS 0x66c
-#define FRAC_BITS 8
+#define FRAC_BITS 6
#define int_tofp(X) ((int64_t)(X) << FRAC_BITS)
#define fp_toint(X) ((X) >> FRAC_BITS)
+#define FP_ROUNDUP(X) ((X) += 1 << FRAC_BITS)
static inline int32_t mul_fp(int32_t x, int32_t y)
{
@@ -556,18 +557,20 @@ static void intel_pstate_get_cpu_pstates(struct cpudata *cpu)
static inline void intel_pstate_calc_busy(struct cpudata *cpu,
struct sample *sample)
{
- u64 core_pct;
- u64 c0_pct;
+ int32_t core_pct;
+ int32_t c0_pct;
- core_pct = div64_u64(sample->aperf * 100, sample->mperf);
+ core_pct = div_fp(int_tofp((sample->aperf)),
+ int_tofp((sample->mperf)));
+ core_pct = mul_fp(core_pct, int_tofp(100));
+ FP_ROUNDUP(core_pct);
+
+ c0_pct = div_fp(int_tofp(sample->mperf), int_tofp(sample->tsc));
- c0_pct = div64_u64(sample->mperf * 100, sample->tsc);
sample->freq = fp_toint(
- mul_fp(int_tofp(cpu->pstate.max_pstate),
- int_tofp(core_pct * 1000)));
+ mul_fp(int_tofp(cpu->pstate.max_pstate * 1000), core_pct));
- sample->core_pct_busy = mul_fp(int_tofp(core_pct),
- div_fp(int_tofp(c0_pct + 1), int_tofp(100)));
+ sample->core_pct_busy = mul_fp(core_pct, c0_pct);
}
static inline void intel_pstate_sample(struct cpudata *cpu)
@@ -579,6 +582,10 @@ static inline void intel_pstate_sample(struct cpudata *cpu)
rdmsrl(MSR_IA32_MPERF, mperf);
tsc = native_read_tsc();
+ aperf = aperf >> FRAC_BITS;
+ mperf = mperf >> FRAC_BITS;
+ tsc = tsc >> FRAC_BITS;
+
cpu->sample_ptr = (cpu->sample_ptr + 1) % SAMPLE_COUNT;
cpu->samples[cpu->sample_ptr].aperf = aperf;
cpu->samples[cpu->sample_ptr].mperf = mperf;
@@ -610,7 +617,8 @@ static inline int32_t intel_pstate_get_scaled_busy(struct
cpudata *cpu)
core_busy = cpu->samples[cpu->sample_ptr].core_pct_busy;
max_pstate = int_tofp(cpu->pstate.max_pstate);
current_pstate = int_tofp(cpu->pstate.current_pstate);
- return mul_fp(core_busy, div_fp(max_pstate, current_pstate));
+ core_busy = mul_fp(core_busy, div_fp(max_pstate, current_pstate));
+ return FP_ROUNDUP(core_busy);
}
static inline void intel_pstate_adjust_busy_pstate(struct cpudata *cpu)
From: Dirk Brandewie <[email protected]>
Commit fcb6a15c2e Take core C0 time into account for core busy calculation.
Introduced a regression on some processor SKUs supported by
intel_pstate. This was caused by the truncation caused by using
integer math to calculate core busy and C0 percentages.
On a i7-4770K processor operating at 800Mhz going to 100% utilization
the percent busy of the CPU using integer math is 22% it actually is
22.85%. This value scaled to the current frequency returned 97 which
the PID interpreted as no error and did not adjust the P state.
Tested on i7-4770K, i7-2600, i5-3230M
References:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/2/19/626
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=70941
Signed-off-by: Dirk Brandewie <[email protected]>
---
drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++----------
1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c b/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
index e908161..2cd36b9 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
@@ -39,9 +39,10 @@
#define BYT_TURBO_RATIOS 0x66c
-#define FRAC_BITS 8
+#define FRAC_BITS 6
#define int_tofp(X) ((int64_t)(X) << FRAC_BITS)
#define fp_toint(X) ((X) >> FRAC_BITS)
+#define FP_ROUNDUP(X) ((X) += 1 << FRAC_BITS)
static inline int32_t mul_fp(int32_t x, int32_t y)
{
@@ -556,18 +557,20 @@ static void intel_pstate_get_cpu_pstates(struct cpudata *cpu)
static inline void intel_pstate_calc_busy(struct cpudata *cpu,
struct sample *sample)
{
- u64 core_pct;
- u64 c0_pct;
+ int32_t core_pct;
+ int32_t c0_pct;
- core_pct = div64_u64(sample->aperf * 100, sample->mperf);
+ core_pct = div_fp(int_tofp((sample->aperf)),
+ int_tofp((sample->mperf)));
+ core_pct = mul_fp(core_pct, int_tofp(100));
+ FP_ROUNDUP(core_pct);
+
+ c0_pct = div_fp(int_tofp(sample->mperf), int_tofp(sample->tsc));
- c0_pct = div64_u64(sample->mperf * 100, sample->tsc);
sample->freq = fp_toint(
- mul_fp(int_tofp(cpu->pstate.max_pstate),
- int_tofp(core_pct * 1000)));
+ mul_fp(int_tofp(cpu->pstate.max_pstate * 1000), core_pct));
- sample->core_pct_busy = mul_fp(int_tofp(core_pct),
- div_fp(int_tofp(c0_pct + 1), int_tofp(100)));
+ sample->core_pct_busy = mul_fp(core_pct, c0_pct);
}
static inline void intel_pstate_sample(struct cpudata *cpu)
@@ -579,6 +582,10 @@ static inline void intel_pstate_sample(struct cpudata *cpu)
rdmsrl(MSR_IA32_MPERF, mperf);
tsc = native_read_tsc();
+ aperf = aperf >> FRAC_BITS;
+ mperf = mperf >> FRAC_BITS;
+ tsc = tsc >> FRAC_BITS;
+
cpu->sample_ptr = (cpu->sample_ptr + 1) % SAMPLE_COUNT;
cpu->samples[cpu->sample_ptr].aperf = aperf;
cpu->samples[cpu->sample_ptr].mperf = mperf;
@@ -610,7 +617,8 @@ static inline int32_t intel_pstate_get_scaled_busy(struct cpudata *cpu)
core_busy = cpu->samples[cpu->sample_ptr].core_pct_busy;
max_pstate = int_tofp(cpu->pstate.max_pstate);
current_pstate = int_tofp(cpu->pstate.current_pstate);
- return mul_fp(core_busy, div_fp(max_pstate, current_pstate));
+ core_busy = mul_fp(core_busy, div_fp(max_pstate, current_pstate));
+ return FP_ROUNDUP(core_busy);
}
static inline void intel_pstate_adjust_busy_pstate(struct cpudata *cpu)
--
1.8.3.1
On Tuesday, February 25, 2014 10:35:37 AM [email protected] wrote:
> From: Dirk Brandewie <[email protected]>
>
> Commit fcb6a15c2e Take core C0 time into account for core busy calculation.
>
> Introduced a regression on some processor SKUs supported by
> intel_pstate. This was caused by the truncation caused by using
> integer math to calculate core busy and C0 percentages.
>
> On a i7-4770K processor operating at 800Mhz going to 100% utilization
> the percent busy of the CPU using integer math is 22% it actually is
> 22.85%. This value scaled to the current frequency returned 97 which
> the PID interpreted as no error and did not adjust the P state.
>
> Tested on i7-4770K, i7-2600, i5-3230M
>
> References:
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/2/19/626
> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=70941
>
> Signed-off-by: Dirk Brandewie <[email protected]>
Queued up as a fix for 3.14.
Thanks!
> ---
> drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++----------
> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c b/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
> index e908161..2cd36b9 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
> @@ -39,9 +39,10 @@
> #define BYT_TURBO_RATIOS 0x66c
>
>
> -#define FRAC_BITS 8
> +#define FRAC_BITS 6
> #define int_tofp(X) ((int64_t)(X) << FRAC_BITS)
> #define fp_toint(X) ((X) >> FRAC_BITS)
> +#define FP_ROUNDUP(X) ((X) += 1 << FRAC_BITS)
>
> static inline int32_t mul_fp(int32_t x, int32_t y)
> {
> @@ -556,18 +557,20 @@ static void intel_pstate_get_cpu_pstates(struct cpudata *cpu)
> static inline void intel_pstate_calc_busy(struct cpudata *cpu,
> struct sample *sample)
> {
> - u64 core_pct;
> - u64 c0_pct;
> + int32_t core_pct;
> + int32_t c0_pct;
>
> - core_pct = div64_u64(sample->aperf * 100, sample->mperf);
> + core_pct = div_fp(int_tofp((sample->aperf)),
> + int_tofp((sample->mperf)));
> + core_pct = mul_fp(core_pct, int_tofp(100));
> + FP_ROUNDUP(core_pct);
> +
> + c0_pct = div_fp(int_tofp(sample->mperf), int_tofp(sample->tsc));
>
> - c0_pct = div64_u64(sample->mperf * 100, sample->tsc);
> sample->freq = fp_toint(
> - mul_fp(int_tofp(cpu->pstate.max_pstate),
> - int_tofp(core_pct * 1000)));
> + mul_fp(int_tofp(cpu->pstate.max_pstate * 1000), core_pct));
>
> - sample->core_pct_busy = mul_fp(int_tofp(core_pct),
> - div_fp(int_tofp(c0_pct + 1), int_tofp(100)));
> + sample->core_pct_busy = mul_fp(core_pct, c0_pct);
> }
>
> static inline void intel_pstate_sample(struct cpudata *cpu)
> @@ -579,6 +582,10 @@ static inline void intel_pstate_sample(struct cpudata *cpu)
> rdmsrl(MSR_IA32_MPERF, mperf);
> tsc = native_read_tsc();
>
> + aperf = aperf >> FRAC_BITS;
> + mperf = mperf >> FRAC_BITS;
> + tsc = tsc >> FRAC_BITS;
> +
> cpu->sample_ptr = (cpu->sample_ptr + 1) % SAMPLE_COUNT;
> cpu->samples[cpu->sample_ptr].aperf = aperf;
> cpu->samples[cpu->sample_ptr].mperf = mperf;
> @@ -610,7 +617,8 @@ static inline int32_t intel_pstate_get_scaled_busy(struct cpudata *cpu)
> core_busy = cpu->samples[cpu->sample_ptr].core_pct_busy;
> max_pstate = int_tofp(cpu->pstate.max_pstate);
> current_pstate = int_tofp(cpu->pstate.current_pstate);
> - return mul_fp(core_busy, div_fp(max_pstate, current_pstate));
> + core_busy = mul_fp(core_busy, div_fp(max_pstate, current_pstate));
> + return FP_ROUNDUP(core_busy);
> }
>
> static inline void intel_pstate_adjust_busy_pstate(struct cpudata *cpu)
>
--
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
On my i3-4330 this patch fixed the problem. works fine
Thanks
Am 26.02.2014 01:39, schrieb Rafael J. Wysocki:
> On Tuesday, February 25, 2014 10:35:37 AM [email protected] wrote:
>> From: Dirk Brandewie <[email protected]>
>>
>> Commit fcb6a15c2e Take core C0 time into account for core busy calculation.
>>
>> Introduced a regression on some processor SKUs supported by
>> intel_pstate. This was caused by the truncation caused by using
>> integer math to calculate core busy and C0 percentages.
>>
>> On a i7-4770K processor operating at 800Mhz going to 100% utilization
>> the percent busy of the CPU using integer math is 22% it actually is
>> 22.85%. This value scaled to the current frequency returned 97 which
>> the PID interpreted as no error and did not adjust the P state.
>>
>> Tested on i7-4770K, i7-2600, i5-3230M
>>
>> References:
>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/2/19/626
>> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=70941
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Dirk Brandewie <[email protected]>
> Queued up as a fix for 3.14.
>
> Thanks!
>
>> ---
>> drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++----------
>> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c b/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
>> index e908161..2cd36b9 100644
>> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
>> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/intel_pstate.c
>> @@ -39,9 +39,10 @@
>> #define BYT_TURBO_RATIOS 0x66c
>>
>>
>> -#define FRAC_BITS 8
>> +#define FRAC_BITS 6
>> #define int_tofp(X) ((int64_t)(X) << FRAC_BITS)
>> #define fp_toint(X) ((X) >> FRAC_BITS)
>> +#define FP_ROUNDUP(X) ((X) += 1 << FRAC_BITS)
>>
>> static inline int32_t mul_fp(int32_t x, int32_t y)
>> {
>> @@ -556,18 +557,20 @@ static void intel_pstate_get_cpu_pstates(struct cpudata *cpu)
>> static inline void intel_pstate_calc_busy(struct cpudata *cpu,
>> struct sample *sample)
>> {
>> - u64 core_pct;
>> - u64 c0_pct;
>> + int32_t core_pct;
>> + int32_t c0_pct;
>>
>> - core_pct = div64_u64(sample->aperf * 100, sample->mperf);
>> + core_pct = div_fp(int_tofp((sample->aperf)),
>> + int_tofp((sample->mperf)));
>> + core_pct = mul_fp(core_pct, int_tofp(100));
>> + FP_ROUNDUP(core_pct);
>> +
>> + c0_pct = div_fp(int_tofp(sample->mperf), int_tofp(sample->tsc));
>>
>> - c0_pct = div64_u64(sample->mperf * 100, sample->tsc);
>> sample->freq = fp_toint(
>> - mul_fp(int_tofp(cpu->pstate.max_pstate),
>> - int_tofp(core_pct * 1000)));
>> + mul_fp(int_tofp(cpu->pstate.max_pstate * 1000), core_pct));
>>
>> - sample->core_pct_busy = mul_fp(int_tofp(core_pct),
>> - div_fp(int_tofp(c0_pct + 1), int_tofp(100)));
>> + sample->core_pct_busy = mul_fp(core_pct, c0_pct);
>> }
>>
>> static inline void intel_pstate_sample(struct cpudata *cpu)
>> @@ -579,6 +582,10 @@ static inline void intel_pstate_sample(struct cpudata *cpu)
>> rdmsrl(MSR_IA32_MPERF, mperf);
>> tsc = native_read_tsc();
>>
>> + aperf = aperf >> FRAC_BITS;
>> + mperf = mperf >> FRAC_BITS;
>> + tsc = tsc >> FRAC_BITS;
>> +
>> cpu->sample_ptr = (cpu->sample_ptr + 1) % SAMPLE_COUNT;
>> cpu->samples[cpu->sample_ptr].aperf = aperf;
>> cpu->samples[cpu->sample_ptr].mperf = mperf;
>> @@ -610,7 +617,8 @@ static inline int32_t intel_pstate_get_scaled_busy(struct cpudata *cpu)
>> core_busy = cpu->samples[cpu->sample_ptr].core_pct_busy;
>> max_pstate = int_tofp(cpu->pstate.max_pstate);
>> current_pstate = int_tofp(cpu->pstate.current_pstate);
>> - return mul_fp(core_busy, div_fp(max_pstate, current_pstate));
>> + core_busy = mul_fp(core_busy, div_fp(max_pstate, current_pstate));
>> + return FP_ROUNDUP(core_busy);
>> }
>>
>> static inline void intel_pstate_adjust_busy_pstate(struct cpudata *cpu)
>>
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 10:35:37AM -0800, [email protected] wrote:
> From: Dirk Brandewie <[email protected]>
>
> Commit fcb6a15c2e Take core C0 time into account for core busy calculation.
>
> Introduced a regression on some processor SKUs supported by
> intel_pstate. This was caused by the truncation caused by using
> integer math to calculate core busy and C0 percentages.
>
> On a i7-4770K processor operating at 800Mhz going to 100% utilization
> the percent busy of the CPU using integer math is 22% it actually is
> 22.85%. This value scaled to the current frequency returned 97 which
> the PID interpreted as no error and did not adjust the P state.
>
> Tested on i7-4770K, i7-2600, i5-3230M
>
> References:
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/2/19/626
> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=70941
>
> Signed-off-by: Dirk Brandewie <[email protected]>
Thanks, this fixed the issue for me:
Tested-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>