On 22/11/2017 12:56, Chris Wilson wrote:
Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2017-11-22 12:47:05)
From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
Simple test to check correct queue-depth is reported per engine.
Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
---
tests/perf_pmu.c | 79 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 79 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tests/perf_pmu.c b/tests/perf_pmu.c
index 8585ed7bcee8..17f0afca6fe1 100644
--- a/tests/perf_pmu.c
+++ b/tests/perf_pmu.c
@@ -87,6 +87,17 @@ static uint64_t pmu_read_single(int fd)
return data[0];
}
+static uint64_t pmu_sample_single(int fd, uint64_t *val)
+{
+ uint64_t data[2];
+
+ igt_assert_eq(read(fd, data, sizeof(data)), sizeof(data));
+
+ *val = data[0];
+
+ return data[1];
+}
+
static void pmu_read_multi(int fd, unsigned int num, uint64_t *val)
{
uint64_t buf[2 + num];
@@ -655,6 +666,65 @@ multi_client(int gem_fd, const struct intel_execution_engine2 *e)
assert_within_epsilon(val[1], slept, tolerance);
}
+static double calc_queued(uint64_t d_val, uint64_t d_ns)
+{
+ return (double)d_val * 1e9 * I915_SAMPLE_QUEUED_SCALE / d_ns;
+}
+
+static void
+queued(int gem_fd, const struct intel_execution_engine2 *e)
+{
+ const unsigned long duration_ns = 500e6;
0.5s.
Not sure what you mean? Express it in a different way using some
NSECS_PER_SEC define?
+ igt_spin_t *spin[2];
+ uint64_t val[2];
+ uint64_t ts[2];
+ int fd;
+
+ fd = open_pmu(I915_PMU_ENGINE_QUEUED(e->class, e->instance));
+
+ /*
+ * First check on an idle engine.
+ */
+ ts[0] = pmu_sample_single(fd, &val[0]);
+ usleep(duration_ns / 3000);
+ ts[1] = pmu_sample_single(fd, &val[1]);
+ assert_within_epsilon(calc_queued(val[1] - val[0], ts[1] - ts[0]),
+ 0.0, tolerance);
+
+ /*
+ * First spin batch will be immediately executing.
+ */
+ spin[0] = igt_spin_batch_new(gem_fd, 0, e2ring(gem_fd, e), 0);
+ igt_spin_batch_set_timeout(spin[0], duration_ns);
+
+ ts[0] = pmu_sample_single(fd, &val[0]);
+ usleep(duration_ns / 3000);
+ ts[1] = pmu_sample_single(fd, &val[1]);
+ assert_within_epsilon(calc_queued(val[1] - val[0], ts[1] - ts[0]),
+ 1.0, tolerance);
+
What I would like here is a for(n=1; n < 10; n++)
where max_n is chosen so that we terminate within 5s, changing sample
intervals to match if we want to increase N.
Hmm.
for (n = 1; n < 10; n++)
ctx = gem_context_create()
for (m = 0; m < n; m++)
...etc...
(We probably either want to measure ring_size and avoid that, or use a
timeout that interrupts the last execbuf... Ok, that's better overall.)
And have qd geometrically increase. Basically just want to avoid hitting
magic numbers inside HW, ELSP/guc depth of 2 being the first magic
number we want to miss.
I get the suggestion to test different queue depths and thats a good
one. I did fail to keep track with the rest you wrote including why to
add contexts into the picture?
How about simply grow the queue-depth exponentially until a set limit?
with a 5s time budget with could go to a quite high qd, much more than
we actually need.
We do have a facility to terminate the spin batch I think so don't have
to wait for all of them to complete.
Regards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
