|
On 11/30/2017 8:34 AM, John Harrison
wrote:
On 11/24/2017 6:12 AM, Chris Wilson wrote:
Quoting Michał Winiarski (2017-11-24 12:37:56)
Since we see the effects for GuC preeption, let's gather some evidence.
(SKL)
intel_guc_send_mmio latency: 100 rounds of gem_exec_latency --r '*-preemption'
drm-tip:
usecs : count distribution
0 -> 1 : 0 | |
2 -> 3 : 0 | |
4 -> 7 : 0 | |
8 -> 15 : 44 | |
16 -> 31 : 1088 | |
32 -> 63 : 832 | |
64 -> 127 : 0 | |
128 -> 255 : 0 | |
256 -> 511 : 12 | |
512 -> 1023 : 0 | |
1024 -> 2047 : 29899 |********* |
2048 -> 4095 : 131033 |****************************************|
Such pretty graphs. Reminds me of the bpf hist output, I wonder if we
could create a tracepoint/kprobe that would output a histogram for each
waiter (filterable ofc). Benefit? Just thinking of tuning the
spin/sleep, in which case overall metrics are best
(intel_eait_for_register needs to be optimised for the typical case). I
am wondering if we could tune the spin period down to 5us, 2us? And then
have the 10us sleep.
We would also need a typical workload to run, it's profile-guided
optimisation after all. Hmm.
-Chris
It took me a while to get back to this but I've now had chance to
run with this exponential backoff scheme on the original system
that showed the problem. It was a slightly messy back port due to
the customer tree being much older than current nightly. I'm
pretty sure I got it correct though. However, I'm not sure what
the recommendation is for the two timeout values. Using the
default of '10, 10' in the patch, I still get lots of very long
delays.
Recommended setting currently is Wmin=10, Wmax=10 for wait_for_us
and Wmin=10, Wmax=1000 for wait_for.
Exponential backoff is more helpful inside wait_for if wait_for_us
prior to wait_for is smaller.
Setting Wmax less than Wmin is effectively changing the backoff
strategy to just linear waits of Wmin.
I have
to up the Wmin value to at least 140 to get a stall free result.
Which is plausible given that the big spike in the results of any
fast version is at 110-150us. Also of note is that a Wmin between
10 and 110 actually makes things worse. Changing Wmax has no
effect.
In the following table, 'original' is the original driver before
any changes and 'retry loop' is the version using the first
workaround of just running the busy poll wait in a 10x loop. The
other columns are using the backoff patch with the given Wmin/Wmax
values. Note that the times are bucketed to 10us up to 500us and
then in 500us lumps thereafter. The value listed is the lower
limit, i.e. there were no times of <10us measured. Each case
was run for 1000 samples.
Below setting like in current nightly will suit this workload and as
you have found this will also likely complete most waits in
<150us.
If many samples had been beyond 160us and less than 300us we might
have been needed to change Wmin to may be 15 or 20 to ensure the
exponential rise caps around 300us.
wait_for_us(10, 10)
wait_for()
#define wait_for _wait_for(10, 1000)
Time Original 10/10 50/10
100/10 110/10 130/10 140/10 RetryLoop
10us: 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2
30us: 1 1
1 1 1
50us: 1
70us: 14 63
56 64 63 61
80us: 8 41
52 44 46 41
90us: 6 24
10 28 12 17
100us: 2 4 20
16 17 17 22
110us: 13
21 14 13 11
120us: 6 366
633 636 660 650
130us: 2 2 46
125 95 86 95
140us: 3 2 16
18 32 46 48
150us: 210 3 12
13 37 32 31
160us: 322 1 18
10 14 12 17
170us: 157 4 5
5 3 5 2
180us: 62 11 3
1 2 1 1
190us: 32 212
1 1 2
200us: 27 266
1 1
210us: 16
181 1
220us: 16
51 1
230us: 10 43 4
240us: 12 22 62 1
250us: 4 12 112 3
260us: 3 13 73 8
270us: 5 12 12
8 2
280us: 4 7 12
5 1
290us: 9 4
300us: 1 3 9
1 1
310us: 2 3 5
1 1
320us: 1 4 2 3
330us: 1 5 1
340us: 1
2 1
350us: 2 1
360us: 2 1
370us: 2 2
380us: 1
390us: 2 1 2 1
410us: 1
420us: 3
430us: 2 2 1
440us: 2 1
450us: 4
460us: 3 1
470us: 3 1
480us: 2 2
490us: 1
500us: 19 13 17
1000us: 249 22 30 11
1500us: 393 4 4 2 1
2000us: 132 7 8 8
2 1 1
2500us: 63 4 4 6
1 1 1
3000us: 59 9 7 6 1
3500us: 34 2
1 1
4000us: 17 9 4 1
4500us: 8 2 1 1
5000us: 7 1 2
5500us: 7 2 1
6000us: 4 2 1 1
6500us: 3 1
7000us: 6 2 1
7500us: 4 1 1
8000us: 5 1
8500us: 1 1
9000us: 2
9500us: 2 1
>10000us: 3 1
John.
_______________________________________________
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
