On Tue, 2016-11-08 at 03:47 -0800, Robert Bragg wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 6:19 AM, sourab gupta <sourab.gupta@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-11-07 at 11:49 -0800, Robert Bragg wrote:
> > The maximum OA sampling frequency is now configurable via a
> > dev.i915.oa_max_sample_rate sysctl parameter.
> >
> > Following the precedent set by perf's similar
> > kernel.perf_event_max_sample_rate the default maximum rate
> is 100000Hz
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Robert Bragg <robert@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_perf.c | 61
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
> > 1 file changed, 50 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_perf.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_perf.c
> > index e51c1d8..1a87fe9 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_perf.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_perf.c
> > @@ -82,6 +82,21 @@ static u32 i915_perf_stream_paranoid =
> true;
> > #define INVALID_CTX_ID 0xffffffff
> >
> >
> > +/* For sysctl proc_dointvec_minmax of
> i915_oa_max_sample_rate
> > + *
> > + * 160ns is the smallest sampling period we can
> theoretically program the OA
> > + * unit with on Haswell, corresponding to 6.25MHz.
> > + */
> > +static int oa_sample_rate_hard_limit = 6250000;
> There's no check for 'oa_sample_rate_hard_limit' anywhere
> below.
>
>
> It's in the struct ctl_table oa_table[] declaration of the
> "oa_max_sample_rate" paramater, assigned to .extra2 which is
> referenced by the proc_dointvec_minmax validation handler for the
> parameter.
>
Ok. Seems fine then.
>
>
> > +
> > +/* Theoretically we can program the OA unit to sample every
> 160ns but don't
> > + * allow that by default unless root...
> > + *
> > + * The default threshold of 100000Hz is based on perf's
> similar
> > + * kernel.perf_event_max_sample_rate sysctl parameter.
> > + */
> > +static u32 i915_oa_max_sample_rate = 100000;
> > +
> > /* XXX: beware if future OA HW adds new report formats that
> the current
> > * code assumes all reports have a power-of-two size and
> ~(size - 1) can
> > * be used as a mask to align the OA tail pointer.
> > @@ -1314,6 +1329,7 @@ static int
> read_properties_unlocked(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> > }
> >
> > for (i = 0; i < n_props; i++) {
> > + u64 oa_period, oa_freq_hz;
> > u64 id, value;
> > int ret;
> >
> > @@ -1359,21 +1375,35 @@ static int
> read_properties_unlocked(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> > return -EINVAL;
> > }
> >
> > - /* NB: The exponent represents a
> period as follows:
> > - *
> > - * 80ns * 2^(period_exponent + 1)
> > - *
> > - * Theoretically we can program the OA
> unit to sample
> > + /* Theoretically we can program the OA
> unit to sample
> > * every 160ns but don't allow that by
> default unless
> > * root.
> > *
> > - * Referring to perf's
> > - * kernel.perf_event_max_sample_rate
> for a precedent
> > - * (100000 by default); with an OA
> exponent of 6 we get
> > - * a period of 10.240 microseconds
> -just under 100000Hz
> > + * On Haswell the period is derived
> from the exponent
> > + * as:
> > + *
> > + * period = 80ns * 2^(exponent + 1)
> > + */
> > + BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(oa_period) != 8);
> > + oa_period = 80ull * (2ull << value);
>
> I assume now that there'll be a platform specific check for
> 80ull, while
> programming oa_period, for subquent Gen8+ platforms, which
> should be
> fine.
>
>
> Yeah, this code will need adapting for gen9+. I guess we'll change it
> to work in terms of ((2<<exp) * NSEC_PER_SEC) / timestamp_frequency.
>
Seems reasonable.
>
>
> > +
> > + /* This check is primarily to ensure
> that oa_period <=
> > + * UINT32_MAX (before passing to
> do_div which only
> > + * accepts a u32 denominator), but we
> can also skip
> > + * checking anything < 1Hz which
> implicitly can't be
> > + * limited via an integer
> oa_max_sample_rate.
> > */
> > - if (value < 6 && !
> capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN)) {
> > - DRM_ERROR("Minimum OA sampling
> exponent is 6 without root privileges\n");
> > + if (oa_period <= NSEC_PER_SEC) {
> > + u64 tmp = NSEC_PER_SEC;
> > + do_div(tmp, oa_period);
> > + oa_freq_hz = tmp;
> > + } else
> > + oa_freq_hz = 0;
> > +
> > + if (oa_freq_hz >
> i915_oa_max_sample_rate &&
> > + !capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN)) {
> > + DRM_ERROR("OA exponent would
> exceed the max sampling frequency (sysctl
> dev.i915.oa_max_sample_rate) %uHz without root privileges\n",
> > +
> i915_oa_max_sample_rate);
> > return -EACCES;
> > }
> >
> > @@ -1481,6 +1511,15 @@ static struct ctl_table oa_table[] =
> {
> > .extra1 = &zero,
> > .extra2 = &one,
> > },
> > + {
> > + .procname = "oa_max_sample_rate",
> > + .data = &i915_oa_max_sample_rate,
> > + .maxlen = sizeof(i915_oa_max_sample_rate),
> > + .mode = 0644,
> > + .proc_handler = proc_dointvec_minmax,
> > + .extra1 = &zero,
> > + .extra2 = &oa_sample_rate_hard_limit,
> > + },
> > {}
> > };
> >
>
The patch looks good to me.
Reviewed-by: Sourab Gupta <sourab.gupta@xxxxxxxxx>
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
