Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Importance Of Thermald On Linux For Modern Intel Tiger Lake Laptops

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Importance Of Thermald On Linux For Modern Intel Tiger Lake Laptops

    Phoronix: The Importance Of Thermald On Linux For Modern Intel Tiger Lake Laptops

    Most Linux distributions including the likes of Ubuntu and Fedora have been shipping Intel's Thermald daemon the past few years as it's important to achieving good thermal/power behavior on modern Intel SoCs. For those curious about its impact, here are some benchmarks carried out with Intel Thermald or not when using an Intel Core i7 1185G7 Tiger Lake notebook.

    https://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=30349

  • #2
    Semi-related but has anybody noticed that the pstate driver doesn't work on Tiger lake? Even in the 5.13 kernel series there is no TGL support.

    Comment


    • #3
      Interesting, especially in cases where disabling improved benchmarks.

      Why'd that happen though? If it was able to sustain the GPU clocks and had the thermal headroom to perform and complete the benchmarks, how come thermald couldn't figure out the optimal solution?

      Also, ever since a phoronix user (Linuxxx I believe) put me on to it, I've switched from intel_pstate performance to acpi_cpufreq performance and the system's noticeably snappier and actually reaches proper boost levels. Shocker
      Code:
      Phoronix Test Suite v10.4.0
      System Information
      
      PROCESSOR: Intel Core i5-4670K @ 4.30GHz
      Core Count: 4
      Extensions: SSE 4.2 + AVX2 + AVX + RDRAND + FSGSBASE
      Cache Size: 6 MB
      Microcode: 0x22
      Core Family: Haswell
      Scaling Driver: acpi-cpufreq performance (Boost: Enabled)
      Give it a shot if you haven't already. Add "intel_pstate=disable" to GRUB, update-grub2, and reboot. Profit

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by perpetually high View Post
        Also, ever since a phoronix user (Linuxxx I believe) put me on to it, I've switched from intel_pstate performance to acpi_cpufreq performance and the system's noticeably snappier and actually reaches proper boost levels. Shocker
        Have you done any benchmarks on this or is it just a seat of the pants feeling? I find this very suspicious because both performance governors will run the CPU at its maximum clock regardless of the load. I don't see where the difference would come from.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by MadCatX View Post
          Have you done any benchmarks on this or is it just a seat of the pants feeling? I find this very suspicious because both performance governors will run the CPU at its maximum clock regardless of the load. I don't see where the difference would come from.
          I hear you, no I've actually done some unofficial benchmarks and they back up what my eyes are seeing also.

          I even looked up many resources online, acpi_cpufreq performance is the business. Give it a shot! I've been very pleased. I know I throw around "this tweak made X faster" but all of these little damn tweaks have made my machine faster than your nephew's new Ryzen or Intel chip. And I'm not even trying to be funny.
          Code:
          ctx_clock:
          pts/ctx-clock-1.0.0
          Test 1 of 1
          Estimated Trial Run Count: 3
          Estimated Time To Completion: 1 Minute [08:12 PDT]
          Started Run 1 @ 08:12:11
          Started Run 2 @ 08:12:16
          Started Run 3 @ 08:12:20
          
          Context Switch Time:
          142
          142
          142
          
          Average: 142 Clocks
          Deviation: 0.00%
          
          Comparison to 3,645 OpenBenchmarking.org samples since 18 February 2019; median result: 255. Box plot of samples:
          [ |*-----------------------------------------------####*#*#*##!*#* ]
          This Result (83rd Percentile): 142 ^
          Intel Celeron J4115: 3201 ^ AMD Ryzen 5 2600: 256 ^
          AMD A10-7870K Radeon R7 12 Compute Cores 4C: 436 ^
          AMD FX-8370E: 533 ^
          AMD FX-6300: 658 ^
          I challenge anyone to beat that!

          edit: $ mkdir tmp && cd tmp && git clone https://github.com/phoronix-test-sui...test-suite.git && cd phoronix-test-suite && ./phoronix-test-suite benchmark pts/ctx-clock-1.0.0
          Last edited by perpetually high; 19 July 2021, 11:20 AM.

          Comment


          • #6
            I wonder if they could somehow dynamically determine the system is more GPU-limited and favor it. Maybe it needs visibility into the work queue statistics for the GPU?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by perpetually high View Post
              Code:
              ctx_clock:
              pts/ctx-clock-1.0.0
              Test 1 of 1
              Estimated Trial Run Count: 3
              Estimated Time To Completion: 1 Minute [08:12 PDT]
              Started Run 1 @ 08:12:11
              Started Run 2 @ 08:12:16
              Started Run 3 @ 08:12:20
              
              Context Switch Time:
              142
              142
              142
              
              Average: 142 Clocks
              Deviation: 0.00%
              
              Comparison to 3,645 OpenBenchmarking.org samples since 18 February 2019; median result: 255. Box plot of samples:
              [ |*-----------------------------------------------####*#*#*##!*#* ]
              This Result (83rd Percentile): 142 ^
              Intel Celeron J4115: 3201 ^ AMD Ryzen 5 2600: 256 ^
              AMD A10-7870K Radeon R7 12 Compute Cores 4C: 436 ^
              AMD FX-8370E: 533 ^
              AMD FX-6300: 658 ^
              I challenge anyone to beat that!
              If you insist.
              Code:
              ctx_clock:
              pts/ctx-clock-1.0.0
              Test 1 of 1
              Estimated Trial Run Count: 3
              Estimated Time To Completion: 1 Minute [17:44 CEST]
              Started Run 1 @ 17:44:07
              Started Run 2 @ 17:44:12
              Started Run 3 @ 17:44:17
              
              Context Switch Time:
              119
              119
              119
              
              Average: 119 Clocks
              Deviation: 0.00%
              The chip is a rather ordinary mobile Zen 2 with no "secret" tweaks and tricks applied. Even all Spectre mitigations are switched on.
              Code:
              PROCESSOR: AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 4750U @ 1.70GHz
              Core Count: 8
              Thread Count: 16
              Extensions: SSE 4.2 + AVX2 + AVX + RDRAND + FSGSBASE
              Cache Size: 512 MB
              Microcode: 0x8600106
              Core Family: Zen 2
              Scaling Driver: acpi-cpufreq schedutil (Boost: Enabled)
              
              OPERATING SYSTEM: Arch Linux
              Kernel: 5.12.15-arch1-1 (x86_64)
              Desktop: KDE Plasma 5.22.3
              Display Server: X Server 1.20.12 + Wayland
              Compiler: GCC 11.1.0 + Clang 12.0.1 + LLVM 12.0.1
              Security: itlb_multihit: Not affected
              + l1tf: Not affected
              + mds: Not affected
              + meltdown: Not affected
              + spec_store_bypass: Mitigation of SSB disabled via prctl and seccomp
              + spectre_v1: Mitigation of usercopy/swapgs barriers and __user pointer sanitization
              + spectre_v2: Mitigation of Full AMD retpoline IBPB: conditional IBRS_FW STIBP: conditional RSB filling
              + srbds: Not affected
              + tsx_async_abort: Not affected

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by MadCatX View Post

                If you insist.
                Code:
                ctx_clock:
                pts/ctx-clock-1.0.0
                Test 1 of 1
                Estimated Trial Run Count: 3
                Estimated Time To Completion: 1 Minute [17:44 CEST]
                Started Run 1 @ 17:44:07
                Started Run 2 @ 17:44:12
                Started Run 3 @ 17:44:17
                
                Context Switch Time:
                119
                119
                119
                
                Average: 119 Clocks
                Deviation: 0.00%
                The chip is a rather ordinary mobile Zen 2 with no "secret" tweaks and tricks applied. Even all Spectre mitigations are switched on.
                Code:
                PROCESSOR: AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 4750U @ 1.70GHz
                Core Count: 8
                Thread Count: 16
                Extensions: SSE 4.2 + AVX2 + AVX + RDRAND + FSGSBASE
                Cache Size: 512 MB
                Microcode: 0x8600106
                Core Family: Zen 2
                Scaling Driver: acpi-cpufreq schedutil (Boost: Enabled)
                Not cool, dude.

                edit: “And I took that personally”
                Last edited by perpetually high; 19 July 2021, 12:06 PM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by perpetually high View Post

                  I hear you, no I've actually done some unofficial benchmarks and they back up what my eyes are seeing also.

                  I even looked up many resources online, acpi_cpufreq performance is the business. Give it a shot! I've been very pleased. I know I throw around "this tweak made X faster" but all of these little damn tweaks have made my machine faster than your nephew's new Ryzen or Intel chip. And I'm not even trying to be funny.
                  Code:
                  ctx_clock:
                  pts/ctx-clock-1.0.0
                  Test 1 of 1
                  Estimated Trial Run Count: 3
                  Estimated Time To Completion: 1 Minute [08:12 PDT]
                  Started Run 1 @ 08:12:11
                  Started Run 2 @ 08:12:16
                  Started Run 3 @ 08:12:20
                  
                  Context Switch Time:
                  142
                  142
                  142
                  
                  Average: 142 Clocks
                  Deviation: 0.00%
                  
                  Comparison to 3,645 OpenBenchmarking.org samples since 18 February 2019; median result: 255. Box plot of samples:
                  [ |*-----------------------------------------------####*#*#*##!*#* ]
                  This Result (83rd Percentile): 142 ^
                  Intel Celeron J4115: 3201 ^ AMD Ryzen 5 2600: 256 ^
                  AMD A10-7870K Radeon R7 12 Compute Cores 4C: 436 ^
                  AMD FX-8370E: 533 ^
                  AMD FX-6300: 658 ^
                  I challenge anyone to beat that!

                  edit: $ mkdir tmp && cd tmp && git clone https://github.com/phoronix-test-sui...test-suite.git && cd phoronix-test-suite && ./phoronix-test-suite benchmark pts/ctx-clock-1.0.0
                  You do realize you're functionaly comparing apples to oranges then asking people to come up with better lemonade, right?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by stormcrow View Post

                    You do realize you're functionaly comparing apples to oranges then asking people to come up with better lemonade, right?
                    Absolutely. Controversy is my middle name

                    only mentioned it though because of the p_state mention on the first comment. But yes this is not to be taken serious about the benchmarking. Just bragging rights amongst real men (and real women, too)

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X