On Wed, 2017-10-18 at 11:10 +0530, Sagar Arun Kamble wrote:
>
> On 10/17/2017 6:13 PM, Radoslaw Szwichtenberg wrote:
> > Moving code out of the boost function will allow its usage
> > in other/new test scenarios.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Radoslaw Szwichtenberg <radoslaw.szwichtenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Sagar Arun Kamble <sagar.a.kamble@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > tests/pm_rps.c | 19 ++++++++++---------
> > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/tests/pm_rps.c b/tests/pm_rps.c
> > index 89f3e31c..dad87646 100644
> > --- a/tests/pm_rps.c
> > +++ b/tests/pm_rps.c
> > @@ -583,11 +583,6 @@ static void boost_freq(int fd, int *boost_freqs)
> > int64_t timeout = 1;
> > igt_spin_t *load;
> > unsigned int engine;
> > - int fmid = (origfreqs[RPn] + origfreqs[RP0]) / 2;
> > -
> > - fmid = get_hw_rounded_freq(fmid);
> > - /* Set max freq to less then boost freq */
> > - writeval(sysfs_files[MAX].filp, fmid);
> >
> > /* Put boost on the same engine as low load */
> > engine = I915_EXEC_RENDER;
> > @@ -604,9 +599,6 @@ static void boost_freq(int fd, int *boost_freqs)
> > igt_spin_batch_end(load);
> > gem_sync(fd, load->handle);
> > igt_spin_batch_free(fd, load);
> > -
> > - /* Set max freq to original softmax */
> > - writeval(sysfs_files[MAX].filp, origfreqs[MAX]);
> > }
> >
> > static void waitboost(int fd, bool reset)
> > @@ -615,6 +607,9 @@ static void waitboost(int fd, bool reset)
> > int boost_freqs[NUMFREQ];
> > int post_freqs[NUMFREQ];
> >
> > + int fmid = (origfreqs[RPn] + origfreqs[RP0]) / 2;
> > + fmid = get_hw_rounded_freq(fmid);
> > +
>
> How about function for getting mid? We can reuse in min_max_config too.
You think about something like:
static int get_fmid(void)
{
int fmid = (origfreqs[RPn] + origfreqs[RP0]) / 2;
return get_hw_rounded_freq(fmid);
}
Even though it wasn't scope of this change I think I can add it - do you think
it will be beneficial? We just use it two places so at this moment the benefit
will be minimal.
> > load_helper_run(LOW);
> >
> > igt_debug("Apply low load...\n");
> > @@ -627,11 +622,17 @@ static void waitboost(int fd, bool reset)
> > sleep(1);
> > }
> >
> > + /* Set max freq to less than boost freq */
> > + writeval(sysfs_files[MAX].filp, fmid);
> > +
> > /* When we wait upon the GPU, we want to temporarily boost it
> > * to maximum.
> > */
> > boost_freq(fd, boost_freqs);
> >
> > + /* Set max freq to original softmax */
> > + writeval(sysfs_files[MAX].filp, origfreqs[MAX]);
> > +
> > igt_debug("Apply low load again...\n");
> > sleep(1);
> > stabilize_check(post_freqs);
> > @@ -643,7 +644,6 @@ static void waitboost(int fd, bool reset)
> > igt_assert_lt(pre_freqs[CUR], pre_freqs[MAX]);
> > igt_assert_eq(boost_freqs[CUR], boost_freqs[BOOST]);
> > igt_assert_lt(post_freqs[CUR], post_freqs[MAX]);
> > -
> > }
> >
> > static void pm_rps_exit_handler(int sig)
> > @@ -656,6 +656,7 @@ static void pm_rps_exit_handler(int sig)
> > writeval(sysfs_files[MAX].filp, origfreqs[MAX]);
> > }
> >
> > + writeval(sysfs_files[BOOST].filp, origfreqs[BOOST]);
>
> We are not changing boost_freq in current patch. Is this planned in new
> testcase?
> Please defer this change until then.
Will remove!
Thanks for review!
Radek
> > load_helper_deinit();
> > close(drm_fd);
> > }
>
>
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
