On 09/05/2017 16:29, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 04:16:41PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 09/05/2017 15:26, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 03:09:33PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
By popular customer demand here is the prototype for cheap engine utilization
tracking.
customer and debugfs?
Well I did write in one of the following paragraphs on this topic.
Perhaps I should have put it in procfs. :) Sysfs API looks
restrictive or perhaps I missed a way to get low level (fops) access
to it.
It uses static branches so in the default off case it really should be cheap.
Not as cheap (for the off case) as simply sampling RING_HEAD/RING_TAIL
Off case are three no-op instructions in three places in the irq
tasklet. And a little bit of object size growth, if you worry about
that aspect?
It's just how the snowball begins.
We should be able to control it. We also have to consider which one is
lighter for this particular use case.
which looks to be the same level of detail. I wrapped all this up in a
perf interface once up a time...
How does that work? Via periodic sampling? Accuracy sounds like it
would be proportionate to the sampling frequency, no?
Right, and the sampling frequency is under user control (via perf) with
a default of around 1000, gives a small systematic error when dealing with %
I included power, interrupts, rc6, frequency (and the statistics but I
never used those and dropped them once oa landed), as well as
utilisation, just for the convenience of having sane interface :)
Can you resurrect those patches? Don't have to rebase and all but I
would like to see them at least.
Regards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
