On 2012-09-01 12:14, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 8:35 PM, Ben Widawsky <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On 2012-09-01 11:28, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On 9/1/2012 11:26 AM, Ben Widawsky wrote:
On 2012-08-30 04:26, Daniel Vetter wrote:
We've had and still have too many issues where the gpu turbot
doesn't
quite to what it's supposed to do (or what we want it to do).
Adding a tracepoint to track when the desired gpu frequence
changes
should help a lot in characterizing and understanding problematic
workloads.
Also, this should be fairly interesting for power tuning (and
especially noticing when the gpu is stuck in high frequencies, as
has
happened in the past) and hence for integration into powertop and
similar tools.
Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx>
I can't help but think it's equally interesting to know when the
queue
the work as well.
btw... if the userspace interface (e.g. the actual event) is not
controversial and very unlikely to change,
I'd like to start coding the powertop support for this already....
I have no problem with Daniel's patch. It's just a matter of cutting
through
some scheduler BS of "when the GPU wants to change frequency" vs.
"when we
actually change the GPU frequency." I think *both* are interesting.
Hm, aren't there some neat tracepoints to measure the latency of work
items around already? I agree that this might be useful, but just
adding a tracepoint for this one workqueue item feels like overkill
It depends on what you're trying to measure. I think this patch is
quite useful but I think I'll make you defend your patch now since
you're the maintainer and you took your own patch and you're shooting
down my idea. So please tell me what PowerTOP should do with this patch
other than notice we're stuck (and furthermore, even if we're stuck,
what should it tell us to do)?
As you may recall we can get multiple up and down interrupts, and we
coalesce them and only do one thing. Information is lost there that
could have been useful; caveat to that - I haven't looked at the code in
a while, but that's what we used to do. What I mean though is, if we get
an up then down interrupt, in that order, it will go out as a trace
event that we're raising the GPU frequency (again, previous caveat
applies). So I think this event + the current GPU frequency is more
interesting than just when we change the frequency; however all 3 would
be even better for finding driver bugs.
More on tracing at the interrupt time: I think getting this info to
userspace is somewhat less useful than tying it into some kind of CPU
governor hooks. For example, if we get multiple consecutive RP down
interrupts, we can probably add it to a list of reasons we might want to
lower the CPU frequency, and the contrapositive is also true.
...
Arjan, the tracepoint patch is merged already into
drm-intel-next-queued, i.e. powertop integration is good to go.
Thanks, Daniel
--
Ben Widawsky, Intel Open Source Technology Center
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
