On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 03:08:27PM +0000, Oscar Mateo wrote:
> Cc: Dmitry Rogozhkin <dmitry.v.rogozhkin@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Oscar Mateo <oscar.mateo@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> tests/pm_sseu.c | 105 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 105 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/tests/pm_sseu.c b/tests/pm_sseu.c
> index 7d4b33c..1fb36c5 100644
> --- a/tests/pm_sseu.c
> +++ b/tests/pm_sseu.c
> @@ -352,6 +352,108 @@ full_enable(void)
> check_full_enable(&stat);
> }
>
> +#define GEN8_R_PWR_CLK_STATE (0x20C8)
> +#define GEN8_RPCS_ENABLE (1 << 31)
> +
> +#define MI_STORE_REGISTER_MEM_64_BIT_ADDR ((0x24 << 23) | 2)
> +
> +static uint32_t read_pwrclk_state(drm_intel_bufmgr *bufmgr,
> + struct intel_batchbuffer *batch,
> + drm_intel_context *context)
> +{
> + uint32_t rpcs_config;
> + uint32_t *data;
> + drm_intel_bo *dst_bo;
> +
> + dst_bo = drm_intel_bo_alloc(bufmgr, "dst", 4, 4096);
> +
> + BEGIN_BATCH(3, 1);
> + OUT_BATCH(MI_STORE_REGISTER_MEM_64_BIT_ADDR);
> + OUT_BATCH(GEN8_R_PWR_CLK_STATE);
> + OUT_RELOC(dst_bo, I915_GEM_DOMAIN_RENDER, I915_GEM_DOMAIN_RENDER, 0);
> + ADVANCE_BATCH();
> +
> + intel_batchbuffer_flush_with_context(batch, context);
> +
> + drm_intel_bo_map(dst_bo, 1);
> +
> + data = dst_bo->virtual;
> + rpcs_config = *data;
> +
> + drm_intel_bo_unmap(dst_bo);
> +
> + drm_intel_bo_unreference(dst_bo);
> +
> + return rpcs_config;
> +}
> +
> +#define LOCAL_MI_LOAD_REGISTER_IMM (0x22 << 23)
> +
> +#define GFX_OP_PIPE_CONTROL(len) ((0x3<<29)|(0x3<<27)|(0x2<<24)|((len)-2))
> +#define PIPE_CONTROL_CS_STALL (1<<20)
> +#define PIPE_CONTROL_RENDER_TARGET_CACHE_FLUSH (1<<12)
> +#define PIPE_CONTROL_FLUSH_ENABLE (1<<7)
> +#define PIPE_CONTROL_DC_FLUSH_ENABLE (1<<5)
> +#define PIPE_CONTROL_DEPTH_CACHE_FLUSH (1<<0)
> +
> +static void write_pwrclk_state(drm_intel_bufmgr *bufmgr,
> + struct intel_batchbuffer *batch,
> + drm_intel_context *context,
> + uint32_t rpcs_config)
> +{
> + drm_intel_bo *dst_bo;
> +
> + dst_bo = drm_intel_bo_alloc(bufmgr, "scratch", 4, 4096);
> +
> + BEGIN_BATCH(9, 1);
> + OUT_BATCH(LOCAL_MI_LOAD_REGISTER_IMM | 1);
> + OUT_BATCH(GEN8_R_PWR_CLK_STATE);
> + OUT_BATCH(rpcs_config);
> + OUT_BATCH(GFX_OP_PIPE_CONTROL(6));
> + OUT_BATCH(PIPE_CONTROL_RENDER_TARGET_CACHE_FLUSH |
> + PIPE_CONTROL_DEPTH_CACHE_FLUSH |
> + PIPE_CONTROL_DC_FLUSH_ENABLE |
> + PIPE_CONTROL_FLUSH_ENABLE |
> + PIPE_CONTROL_CS_STALL);
> + OUT_RELOC(dst_bo, I915_GEM_DOMAIN_RENDER, I915_GEM_DOMAIN_RENDER, 0);
> + OUT_BATCH(0);
> + OUT_BATCH(0);
> + OUT_BATCH(0);
> + ADVANCE_BATCH();
> +
> + intel_batchbuffer_flush_with_context(batch, context);
> +
> + drm_intel_bo_unreference(dst_bo);
> +}
> +
> +/* Makes sure userspace can configure GEN8_R_PWR_CLK_STATE (e.g. is whitelisted) */
> +static void
> +pwrclk_state(void)
> +{
> + drm_intel_context *context;
> + uint32_t rpcs_config;
> + bool rpcs_enabled;
> +
> + /*
> + * Gen8 BDW is the first case in which usermode can configure their
> + * own render power gating
> + */
> + igt_require(gem.gen >= 8);
Pop quiz: what result does this give on kernels that do not support RPCS
self-adjustment?
So we need some method to query the modifiable set of registers. Several
options: an lrc version getparam, a query via context getparam for is
this register modifiable, or for userspace to try and fail.
For something like this where the implementation is best effort, trial
and error is not a bad plan. It just means that this test cannot discern
a failure (or we say that all previous kernels were mistaken...)
Question on the whitelist themselves, I presume there is a maximum? How
close are we to running out? (i.e. is this the best use of a precious
whitelist slot?) Can you put that discussion into the changelog +
comment for wa_ring_whitelist_reg.
How well are whitelists supported in gvt? I presume it is transparent.
-Chris
--
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
