On 19/01/2018 13:40, Chris Wilson wrote:
Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2018-01-19 11:45:24)
On 18/01/2018 11:57, Chris Wilson wrote:
Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2018-01-18 10:41:36)
From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
We add a PMU counter to expose the number of requests currently executing
on the GPU.
This is useful to analyze the overall load of the system.
Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
Ok, the split between queued (unmet dependencies),
submitted (met dependencies, ready for hw) and running (on hw) look good
to me. The usual slight inaccuracies that may arise due to trying to
sample across async hw + engines, but those should be minor. And the
counters seem very useful (at least for the trivial overlay).
Glad to hear positive feedback!
The only suggestion I would make is perhaps
engine->stats.unready_requests / requests_queued;
engine->stats.requests_ready / requests_submitted;
(doesn't have to be stats, but I think we want a bit more verbosity
here).
Hm, what is that? You are suggesting some relative stats? Exposed as
another counter? It can be calculated in userspace easily.
Just trying to think of better names than engine->queued.
I like 'stats' as it says "this is not part of the normal engine
management, but some auxiliary information we tracked for user
convenience"; then I was just trying to think of a more apropos name
than 'queued'. I definitely think we want to let the reader know what's
queued :)
Oh right, a container definitely makes sense. More verbose naming can do
as well.
Regards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
