On 9/30/2022 2:52 PM, Sharma, Shashank wrote:
On 9/30/2022 11:13 AM, Lazar, Lijo wrote:
On 9/30/2022 2:07 PM, Sharma, Shashank wrote:
On 9/30/2022 7:08 AM, Lazar, Lijo wrote:
On 9/30/2022 12:02 AM, Alex Deucher wrote:
On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 10:14 AM Lazar, Lijo <lijo.lazar@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
On 9/29/2022 7:30 PM, Sharma, Shashank wrote:
On 9/29/2022 3:37 PM, Lazar, Lijo wrote:
To be clear your understanding -
Nothing is automatic in PMFW. PMFW picks a priority based on the
actual mask sent by driver.
Assuming lower bits corresponds to highest priority -
If driver sends a mask with Bit3 and Bit 0 set, PMFW will chose
profile that corresponds to Bit0. If driver sends a mask with Bit4
Bit2 set and rest unset, PMFW will chose profile that
corresponds to
Bit2. However if driver sends a mask only with a single bit set, it
chooses the profile regardless of whatever was the previous
profile. t
doesn't check if the existing profile > newly requested one.
That is
the behavior.
So if a job send chooses a profile that corresponds to Bit0, driver
will send that. Next time if another job chooses a profile that
corresponds to Bit1, PMFW will receive that as the new profile and
switch to that. It trusts the driver to send the proper workload
mask.
Hope that gives the picture.
Thanks, my understanding is also similar, referring to the core
power
switch profile function here:
amd_powerplay.c::pp_dpm_switch_power_profile()
*snip code*
hwmgr->workload_mask |= (1 << hwmgr->workload_prority[type]);
index = fls(hwmgr->workload_mask);
index = index <= Workload_Policy_Max ? index - 1 : 0;
workload = hwmgr->workload_setting[index];
*snip_code*
hwmgr->hwmgr_func->set_power_profile_mode(hwmgr, &workload, 0);
Here I can see that the new workload mask is appended into the
existing
workload mask (not overwritten). So if we keep sending new
workload_modes, they would be appended into the workload flags and
finally the PM will pick the most aggressive one of all these
flags, as
per its policy.
Actually it's misleading -
The path for sienna is -
set_power_profile_mode -> sienna_cichlid_set_power_profile_mode
This code here is a picking one based on lookup table.
workload_type = smu_cmn_to_asic_specific_index(smu,
CMN2ASIC_MAPPING_WORKLOAD,
smu->power_profile_mode);
This is that lookup table -
static struct cmn2asic_mapping
sienna_cichlid_workload_map[PP_SMC_POWER_PROFILE_COUNT] = {
WORKLOAD_MAP(PP_SMC_POWER_PROFILE_BOOTUP_DEFAULT,
WORKLOAD_PPLIB_DEFAULT_BIT),
WORKLOAD_MAP(PP_SMC_POWER_PROFILE_FULLSCREEN3D,
WORKLOAD_PPLIB_FULL_SCREEN_3D_BIT),
WORKLOAD_MAP(PP_SMC_POWER_PROFILE_POWERSAVING,
WORKLOAD_PPLIB_POWER_SAVING_BIT),
WORKLOAD_MAP(PP_SMC_POWER_PROFILE_VIDEO,
WORKLOAD_PPLIB_VIDEO_BIT),
WORKLOAD_MAP(PP_SMC_POWER_PROFILE_VR,
WORKLOAD_PPLIB_VR_BIT),
WORKLOAD_MAP(PP_SMC_POWER_PROFILE_COMPUTE,
WORKLOAD_PPLIB_COMPUTE_BIT),
WORKLOAD_MAP(PP_SMC_POWER_PROFILE_CUSTOM,
WORKLOAD_PPLIB_CUSTOM_BIT),
};
And this is the place of interaction with PMFW. (1 <<
workload_type) is
the mask being sent.
smu_cmn_send_smc_msg_with_param(smu,
SMU_MSG_SetWorkloadMask,
1 << workload_type, NULL);
In the end, driver implementation expects only one bit to be set.
Shashank and I had a discussion about this today. I think there are a
few thing we can do to handle this better:
1. Set a flag that if the user changes the default via sysfs that
overrides any runtime setting via an application since presumably that
is what the user wants and we won't change the hint at runtime.
2. Drop the GET API. There's no need for this, the hint is just a
hint.
Double checked again based on Felix's comments on API definition.
Driver decides the priority instead of FW. That way we can still
keep Get API.
2. Have the driver arbitrate between the available workload profiles
based on the numeric value of the hint (e.g., default < 3D < video <
VR < compute) as the higher values are more aggressive in most cases.
If requests come in for 3D and compute at the same time, the driver
will select compute because it's value is highest. Each hint type
would be ref counted so we'd know what state to be in every time we go
to set the state. If all of the clients requesting compute go away,
and only 3D requestors remain, we can switch to 3D. If all refcounts
go to 0, we go back to default. This will not require any change to
the current workload API in the SMU code.
Since PM layer decides priority, refcount can be kept at powerplay
and swsmu layer instead of any higher level API.
User API may keep something like req_power_profile (for any
logging/debug purpose) for the job preference.
No, I think there has been enough confusion around this
implementation so far, we will implement this just as Alex/Felix
suggested:
- No change will be done in pm/SMU layer.
Well, a confusion doesn't justify bad implementation. You could just
keep the refcount in workload_setting.
So far, none of us have any reason to believe its a bad implementation.
Why is it so, again ?
It's only about keeping track of requests at client layer.
Another API that uses power profile indirectly also will need to take
care of refcount and we don't need every other API to do that
separately without knowing what is the final outcome.
And why ? The dpm_switch_power_profile API was introduced to be used by
a higher level API, and if a consumer API wants to keep track of that,
its their own call. This doesn't affect internal PM APIs. The whole idea
is to manage the PM calls without any change in PM APIs.
Just like per-job-switch-profile is a new usage, there could be other
new cases as well. Also, there are other APIs which indirectly
manipulates power profile other than sys.
All I'm saying is keep the refcount at core layer so that regardless of
wherever it comes from, it keeps the preference.
So instead of this-
smu->workload_mask &= ~(1 << smu->workload_prority[type]);
Have something like this -
smu->workload[type].reqcount--;
if (!smu->workload[type].reqcount)
smu->workload_mask &= ~(1 << smu->workload[type].priority);
I guess, the count was not there because there was no usage of multiple
clients preferring the same profile at the same time. Now that there is
a case for this, fix it at where required rather than keeping a track of
it at client layer.
Thanks,
Lijo
- Shashank
Thanks,
Lijo
- The amdgpu_context_workload layer will keep the ref_counting and
user_workload_hint management, and it will just call and consume the
pm_switch_workload profile() like any other client.
- We will add a force flag for calls coming from sysfs() interface,
and it will take the highest priority. No state machine will be
managed for sysfs, and it will work as it is working today.
- Shashank
Thanks,
Lijo
Alex
Thanks,
Lijo
Now, when we have a single workload:
-> Job1: requests profile P1 via UAPI, ref count = 1
-> driver sends flags for p1
-> PM FW applies profile P1
-> Job executes in profile P1
-> Job goes to reset function, ref_count = 0,
-> Power profile resets
Now, we have conflicts only when we see multiple workloads (Job1
and Job 2)
-> Job1: requests profile P1 via UAPI, ref count = 1
-> driver sends flags for p1
-> PM FW applies profile P1
-> Job executes in profile P1
-> Job2: requests profile P2 via UAPI, refcount = 2
-> driver sends flags for (P1|P2)
-> PM FW picks the more aggressive of the two (Say P1, stays in P1)
-> Job1 goes to reset function, ref_count = 1, job1 does not
reset power
profile
-> Job2 goes to reset function, ref_counter = 2, job 2 resets
Power profile
-> Power profile resets to None
So this state machine looks like if there is only 1 job, it will be
executed in desired mode. But if there are multiple, the most
aggressive
profile will be picked, and every job will be executed in atleast
the
requested power profile mode or higher.
Do you find any problem so far ?
- Shashank
Thanks,
Lijo
