On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 03:40:22PM GMT, Matt Roper wrote:
On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 01:43:07PM -0700, Lucas De Marchi wrote:From: Umesh Nerlige Ramappa <umesh.nerlige.ramappa@xxxxxxxxx> Add a helper to accumulate per-client runtime of all its exec queues. This is called every time a sched job is finished. v2: - Use guc_exec_queue_free_job() and execlist_job_free() to accumulate runtime when job is finished since xe_sched_job_completed() is not a notification that job finished. - Stop trying to update runtime from xe_exec_queue_fini() - that is redundant and may happen after xef is closed, leading to a use-after-free - Do not special case the first timestamp read: the default LRC sets CTX_TIMESTAMP to zero, so even the first sample should be a valid one. - Handle the parallel submission case by multiplying the runtime by width. v3: Update comments Signed-off-by: Umesh Nerlige Ramappa <umesh.nerlige.ramappa@xxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@xxxxxxxxx> --- drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device_types.h | 3 +++ drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_exec_queue.c | 37 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_exec_queue.h | 1 + drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_execlist.c | 1 + drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_guc_submit.c | 2 ++ 5 files changed, 44 insertions(+) diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device_types.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device_types.h index 5c5e36de452a..bc97990fd032 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device_types.h +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device_types.h @@ -555,6 +555,9 @@ struct xe_file { struct mutex lock; } exec_queue; + /** @runtime: hw engine class runtime in ticks for this drm client */ + u64 runtime[XE_ENGINE_CLASS_MAX]; + /** @client: drm client */ struct xe_drm_client *client; }; diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_exec_queue.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_exec_queue.c index 395de93579fa..fa6dc996eca8 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_exec_queue.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_exec_queue.c @@ -769,6 +769,43 @@ bool xe_exec_queue_is_idle(struct xe_exec_queue *q) q->lrc[0].fence_ctx.next_seqno - 1; } +/** + * xe_exec_queue_update_runtime() - Update runtime for this exec queue from hw + * @q: The exec queue + * + * Update the timestamp saved by HW for this exec queue and save runtime + * calculated by using the delta from last update. On multi-lrc case, only the + * first is considered. + */ +void xe_exec_queue_update_runtime(struct xe_exec_queue *q) +{ + struct xe_file *xef; + struct xe_lrc *lrc; + u32 old_ts, new_ts; + + /* + * Jobs that are run during driver load may use an exec_queue, but are + * not associated with a user xe file, so avoid accumulating busyness + * for kernel specific work. + */ + if (!q->vm || !q->vm->xef) + return; + + xef = q->vm->xef; + + /* + * Only sample the first LRC. For parallel submission, all of them are + * scheduled together and we compensate that below by multiplying by + * width - this may introduce errors if that premise is not true and + * they don't exit 100% aligned. On the other hand, looping through + * the LRCs and reading them in different time could also introduce + * errors.At the time we're executing this function, those LRCs aren't executing on the hardware anymore and their timestamps aren't continuing to move,
not necessarily. Besides calling this function when execution ends, see last patch. This is called when userspace reads the fdinfo file, which portentially reads this for running LRCs.
right? I don't see where error could creep in from just looping over each of them? I guess parallel submission is mostly just used by media these days, where the batches submitted in parallel are nearly identical and expected to run the same amount of time, right? Do we have any
what I got from Matt Brost is that they are always scheduled together and will run together on the different instances of that engine class, regardless if they are different. As you said, I'm not sure there's even a use case for running different batches. +Matt Brost to confirm my reasoning below. Looking at our uapi and some tests in igt. This is controlled by the width arg when creating the exec queue. Later when executing, we can only pass 1 sync obj to wait for completion. So even if userspace passes different batch addresses during exec (i.e. different batches), the whole lot will not complete until everything finishes. I think it's reasonable to consider everything is busy while it doesn't complete.
userspace (or potential future userspace) that might submit heterogeneous batches in parallel, which would make this inaccurate? I'm not very familiar with the use cases of parallel submission, so I'll trust that you've got a better understanding of the userspace usage than I do; everything else here looks fine to me.
I kind of learned this part when doing this code :). It'd be good to wait for an ack by Matt Brost who is more familiar with it.
Reviewed-by: Matt Roper <matthew.d.roper@xxxxxxxxx>
thanks Lucas De Marchi
