Daniel, ping. Also, please refer to the other thread with Bjorn from pci-dev
on the same topic I added you to.
Andrey
On 1/29/21 2:25 PM, Christian König wrote:
Am 29.01.21 um 18:35 schrieb Andrey Grodzovsky:
On 1/29/21 10:16 AM, Christian König wrote:
Am 28.01.21 um 18:23 schrieb Andrey Grodzovsky:
On 1/19/21 1:59 PM, Christian König wrote:
Am 19.01.21 um 19:22 schrieb Andrey Grodzovsky:
On 1/19/21 1:05 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
[SNIP]
So say writing in a loop to some harmless scratch register for many times
both for plugged
and unplugged case and measure total time delta ?
I think we should at least measure the following:
1. Writing X times to a scratch reg without your patch.
2. Writing X times to a scratch reg with your patch.
3. Writing X times to a scratch reg with the hardware physically disconnected.
I suggest to repeat that once for Polaris (or older) and once for Vega or
Navi.
The SRBM on Polaris is meant to introduce some delay in each access, so it
might react differently then the newer hardware.
Christian.
See attached results and the testing code. Ran on Polaris (gfx8) and
Vega10(gfx9)
In summary, over 1 million WWREG32 in loop with and without this patch you
get around 10ms of accumulated overhead ( so 0.00001 millisecond penalty for
each WWREG32) for using drm_dev_enter check when writing registers.
P.S Bullet 3 I cannot test as I need eGPU and currently I don't have one.
Well if I'm not completely mistaken that are 100ms of accumulated overhead.
So around 100ns per write. And even bigger problem is that this is a ~67%
increase.
My bad, and 67% from what ? How u calculate ?
My bad, (308501-209689)/209689=47% increase.
I'm not sure how many write we do during normal operation, but that sounds
like a bit much. Ideas?
Well, u suggested to move the drm_dev_enter way up but as i see it the problem
with this is that it increase the chance of race where the
device is extracted after we check for drm_dev_enter (there is also such
chance even when it's placed inside WWREG but it's lower).
Earlier I propsed that instead of doing all those guards scattered all over
the code simply delay release of system memory pages and unreserve of
MMIO ranges to until after the device itself is gone after last drm device
reference is dropped. But Daniel opposes delaying MMIO ranges unreserve to after
PCI remove code because according to him it will upset the PCI subsytem.
Yeah, that's most likely true as well.
Maybe Daniel has another idea when he's back from vacation.
Christian.
Andrey
Christian.
_______________________________________________
amd-gfx mailing list
amd-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.freedesktop.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Famd-gfx&data=04%7C01%7CAndrey.Grodzovsky%40amd.com%7C7e63c7ba9ac44d80163108d8c48b9507%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C637475451078731703%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=SozIYYmHpkk%2B4PRycs8T7x1DYagThy6lQoFXV5Ddamk%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
