>-----Original Message-----
>From: Wajdeczko, Michal
>Sent: Thursday, September 7, 2017 3:23 AM
>To: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Cc: Srivatsa, Anusha <anusha.srivatsa@xxxxxxxxx>; intel-
>gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Sundaresan, Sujaritha
><sujaritha.sundaresan@xxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915/guc: Add GuC Load time to debugfs
>
>On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 09:49:02AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>>
>> On 07/09/2017 01:37, Anusha Srivatsa wrote:
>> > Calculate the time that GuC takes to load.
>> > This information could be very useful in determining if GuC is
>> > taking unreasonably long time to load in a certain platforms.
>>
>> Do we need this in debugfs or a DRM_NOTE or something would be
>> sufficient if the load time is above certain threshold?
>>
>> Also, what are the typical times here? Are jiffies precise enough?
>> Could be only 10ms granularity on some kernels.
>>
>> Depending on the above, more or less applicable comments below:
>>
>> > v2: Calculate time before logs are collected.
>> > Move the guc_load_time variable as a part of intel_uc_fw struct.
>> > Store only final result which is to be exported to debugfs. (Michal)
>> > Add the load time in the print message as well.
>> >
>> > Cc: Sujaritha Sundaresan <sujaritha.sundaresan@xxxxxxxxx>
>> > Cc: Oscar Mateo <oscar.mateo@xxxxxxxxx>
>> > Cc: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@xxxxxxxxx>
>> > Signed-off-by: Anusha Srivatsa <anusha.srivatsa@xxxxxxxxx>
>> > ---
>> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c | 3 +++
>> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_loader.c | 8 ++++++++
>> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.h | 1 +
>> > 3 files changed, 12 insertions(+)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
>> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
>> > index 48572b157222..e0b99dbc6608 100644
>> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
>> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
>> > @@ -2379,6 +2379,9 @@ static int i915_guc_load_status_info(struct seq_file
>*m, void *data)
>> > guc_fw->major_ver_wanted, guc_fw->minor_ver_wanted);
>> > seq_printf(m, "\tversion found: %d.%d\n",
>> > guc_fw->major_ver_found, guc_fw->minor_ver_found);
>> > + seq_printf(m, "\tGuC Load time is %lu ms\n",
>> > + jiffies_to_msecs(guc_fw->guc_load_time));
>>
>> OCD: "GuC load time: %lums" to make it more consistent with the other
>> entries here?
I don't have a strong preference, either way works. I can change it in the next revision.
>We can also skip "Guc" prefix as all entries are under "GuC firmware status"
>And maybe better place will be to insert it right after existing "load" entry?
>Then output will be:
>
> GuC firmware status:
> path: i915/xxx.bin
> fetch: SUCCESS
> load: SUCCESS
> load time: 10ms
> ...
>
>or we can even try to combine both entries:
>
> GuC firmware status:
> path: i915/xxx.bin
> fetch: SUCCESS
> load: SUCCESS 10ms
> ...
>
I agree with removing the GuC_ prefix. I like the first output more somehow.... it tells status, and then the time taken for load.....
Thanks Michal for your inputs....
Anusha
>> > +
>> > seq_printf(m, "\theader: offset is %d; size = %d\n",
>> > guc_fw->header_offset, guc_fw->header_size);
>> > seq_printf(m, "\tuCode: offset is %d; size = %d\n", diff --git
>> > a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_loader.c
>> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_loader.c
>> > index 8b0ae7fce7f2..da917f84c471 100644
>> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_loader.c
>> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_loader.c
>> > @@ -199,6 +199,7 @@ static int guc_ucode_xfer_dma(struct
>drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
>> > struct sg_table *sg = vma->pages;
>> > u32 status, rsa[UOS_RSA_SCRATCH_MAX_COUNT];
>> > int i, ret = 0;
>> > + unsigned long guc_start_load, guc_finish_load;
>> > /* where RSA signature starts */
>> > offset = guc_fw->rsa_offset;
>> > @@ -226,6 +227,7 @@ static int guc_ucode_xfer_dma(struct
>drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
>> > /* Finally start the DMA */
>> > I915_WRITE(DMA_CTRL, _MASKED_BIT_ENABLE(UOS_MOVE |
>START_DMA));
>> > + guc_start_load = jiffies;
>> > /*
>> > * Wait for the DMA to complete & the GuC to start up.
>> > @@ -237,6 +239,9 @@ static int guc_ucode_xfer_dma(struct
>drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
>> > */
>> > ret = wait_for(guc_ucode_response(dev_priv, &status), 100);
>> > + guc_finish_load = jiffies;
>> > + guc_fw->guc_load_time = guc_finish_load - guc_start_load;
>>
>> Strictly speaking you don't need the guc_finish_load local.
>>
>> > +
>> > DRM_DEBUG_DRIVER("DMA status 0x%x, GuC status 0x%x\n",
>> > I915_READ(DMA_CTRL), status);
>> > @@ -372,6 +377,9 @@ int intel_guc_init_hw(struct intel_guc *guc)
>> > guc->fw.path,
>> > guc->fw.major_ver_found, guc->fw.minor_ver_found);
>> > + DRM_DEBUG_DRIVER("Time taken to load GuC is %lu\n",
>> > + guc->fw.guc_load_time);
>> > +
>> > return 0;
>> > }
>> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.h
>> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.h index 22ae52b17b0f..52aa05d13863
>> > 100644
>> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.h
>> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uc.h
>> > @@ -154,6 +154,7 @@ struct intel_uc_fw {
>> > uint32_t rsa_offset;
>> > uint32_t ucode_size;
>> > uint32_t ucode_offset;
>> > + unsigned long guc_load_time;
>>
>> Looks wrong to add guc_ (and later huc_) prefixed members in the
>> common struct since both intel_guc and intel_huc encapsulate it. If
>> you just had a single field and called it load_time, wouldn't you get
>> separate copies for guc and huc automatically?
>
>Additionally, move this new member closer to related "load_status" member.
>
>Regards,
>Michal
>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Tvrtko
>>
>> > };
>> > struct intel_guc_log {
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> Intel-gfx mailing list
>> Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
