Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190729095155.GP22106@shao2-debian> <1c0bf22b-2c69-6b45-f700-ed832a3a5c17@suse.de>
 <14fdaaed-51c8-b270-b46b-cba7b5c4ba52@suse.de> <20190805070200.GA91650@shbuild999.sh.intel.com>
 <c0c3f387-dc93-3146-788c-23258b28a015@intel.com> <045a23ab-78f7-f363-4a2e-bf24a7a2f79e@suse.de>
 <37ae41e4-455d-c18d-5c93-7df854abfef9@intel.com> <370747ca-4dc9-917b-096c-891dcc2aedf0@suse.de>
 <c6e220fe-230c-265c-f2fc-b0948d1cb898@intel.com> <20190812072545.GA63191@shbuild999.sh.intel.com>
 <20190813093616.GA65475@shbuild999.sh.intel.com> <64d41701-55a4-e526-17ae-8936de4bc1ef@suse.de>
In-Reply-To: <64d41701-55a4-e526-17ae-8936de4bc1ef@suse.de>
From:   Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 23 Aug 2019 06:02:58 +1000
Message-ID: <CAPM=9twNdYZCbyByLqZPpcK+ifoeL0weXppqzLyZEOn7GPAV_Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [LKP] [drm/mgag200] 90f479ae51: vm-scalability.median -18.8% regression
To:     Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@suse.de>
Cc:     Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
        Rong Chen <rong.a.chen@intel.com>,
        =?UTF-8?Q?Michel_D=C3=A4nzer?= <michel@daenzer.net>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        ying.huang@intel.com, LKP <lkp@01.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 23 Aug 2019 at 03:25, Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@suse.de> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> I was traveling and could reply earlier. Sorry for taking so long.
>
> Am 13.08.19 um 11:36 schrieb Feng Tang:
> > Hi Thomas,
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 03:25:45PM +0800, Feng Tang wrote:
> >> Hi Thomas,
> >>
> >> On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 04:12:29PM +0800, Rong Chen wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>>>> Actually we run the benchmark as a background process, do we need to
> >>>>> disable the cursor and test again?
> >>>> There's a worker thread that updates the display from the shadow buffer.
> >>>> The blinking cursor periodically triggers the worker thread, but the
> >>>> actual update is just the size of one character.
> >>>>
> >>>> The point of the test without output is to see if the regression comes
> >>> >from the buffer update (i.e., the memcpy from shadow buffer to VRAM), or
> >>> >from the worker thread. If the regression goes away after disabling the
> >>>> blinking cursor, then the worker thread is the problem. If it already
> >>>> goes away if there's simply no output from the test, the screen update
> >>>> is the problem. On my machine I have to disable the blinking cursor, so
> >>>> I think the worker causes the performance drop.
> >>>
> >>> We disabled redirecting stdout/stderr to /dev/kmsg,  and the regression is
> >>> gone.
> >>>
> >>> 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
> >>>              \          |                \
> >>>      43785                       44481
> >>> vm-scalability/300s-8T-anon-cow-seq-hugetlb/lkp-knm01
> >>>      43785                       44481        GEO-MEAN vm-scalability.median
> >>
> >> Till now, from Rong's tests:
> >> 1. Disabling cursor blinking doesn't cure the regression.
> >> 2. Disabling printint test results to console can workaround the
> >> regression.
> >>
> >> Also if we set the perfer_shadown to 0, the regression is also
> >> gone.
> >
> > We also did some further break down for the time consumed by the
> > new code.
> >
> > The drm_fb_helper_dirty_work() calls sequentially
> > 1. drm_client_buffer_vmap       (290 us)
> > 2. drm_fb_helper_dirty_blit_real  (19240 us)
> > 3. helper->fb->funcs->dirty()    ---> NULL for mgag200 driver
> > 4. drm_client_buffer_vunmap       (215 us)
> >
>
> It's somewhat different to what I observed, but maybe I just couldn't
> reproduce the problem correctly.
>
> > The average run time is listed after the function names.
> >
> > From it, we can see drm_fb_helper_dirty_blit_real() takes too long
> > time (about 20ms for each run). I guess this is the root cause
> > of this regression, as the original code doesn't use this dirty worker.
>
> True, the original code uses a temporary buffer, but updates the display
> immediately.
>
> My guess is that this could be a caching problem. The worker runs on a
> different CPU, which doesn't have the shadow buffer in cache.
>
> > As said in last email, setting the prefer_shadow to 0 can avoid
> > the regrssion. Could it be an option?
>
> Unfortunately not. Without the shadow buffer, the console's display
> buffer permanently resides in video memory. It consumes significant
> amount of that memory (say 8 MiB out of 16 MiB). That doesn't leave
> enough room for anything else.
>
> The best option is to not print to the console.

Wait a second, I thought the driver did an eviction on modeset of the
scanned out object, this was a deliberate design decision made when
writing those drivers, has this been removed in favour of gem and
generic code paths?

Dave.