On 3/14/2018 2:33 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
Quoting Sagar Arun Kamble (2018-03-14 08:15:15)
On 3/13/2018 7:28 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
Exercise some new API that allows applications to request that
individual contexts are executed within a desired frequency range.
v2: Split single/continuous set_freq subtests
v3: Do an up/down ramp for individual freq request, check nothing
changes after each invalid request
v4: Check the frequencies reported by the kernel across the entire
range.
v5: Rewrite sandwich to create a sandwich between multiple concurrent
engines.
v6: Exercise sysfs overrides.
v7: Reset min/max of default context after independent(); don't ask
about failure
v8: Check transition beyond randomly chosen frequencies as well as
up/down ramps.
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Praveen Paneri <praveen.paneri@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Sagar A Kamble <sagar.a.kamble@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Antonio Argenziano <antonio.argenziano@xxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Antonio Argenziano <antonio.argenziano@xxxxxxxxx> #v5
There are few stray whitespaces in __pmu_within_tolerance, pmu_assert.
Otherwise looks good to me.
Reviewed-by: Sagar Arun Kamble <sagar.a.kamble@xxxxxxxxx>
Can you please clarify few things below:
---
<snip>
+
+static void sysfs_clamp(int fd, const struct intel_execution_engine *e)
+{
+#define N_STEPS 10
+ const unsigned int engine = e->exec_id | e->flags;
+ uint32_t ctx = gem_context_create(fd);
+ uint32_t sys_min, sys_max;
+ uint32_t min, max;
+ double measured;
+ igt_spin_t *spin;
+ int pmu;
+
+ get_sysfs_freq(&sys_min, &sys_max);
+ igt_info("System min freq: %dMHz; max freq: %dMHz\n", sys_min, sys_max);
+
+ get_freq(fd, ctx, &min, &max);
+ igt_info("Context min freq: %dMHz; max freq: %dMHz\n", min, max);
+
+ pmu = perf_i915_open(I915_PMU_REQUESTED_FREQUENCY);
+ igt_require(pmu >= 0);
+
+ for (int outer = 0; outer <= 2*N_STEPS; outer++) {
+ int ofrac = outer > N_STEPS ? 2*N_STEPS - outer : outer;
+ uint32_t ofreq = min + (max - min) * ofrac / N_STEPS;
+ uint32_t cur, discard;
+
+ for (int inner = 0; inner <= 2*N_STEPS; inner++) {
+ int ifrac = inner > N_STEPS ? 2*N_STEPS - inner : inner;
+ uint32_t ifreq = min + (max - min) * ifrac / N_STEPS;
+
+ set_freq(fd, ctx, ifreq, ifreq);
+
+ gem_quiescent_gpu(fd);
+ spin = __igt_spin_batch_new(fd, ctx, engine, 0);
+ usleep(10000);
+
+ set_sysfs_freq(ofreq, ofreq);
+ get_sysfs_freq(&cur, &discard);
We don't sleep here because we know that we set the frequency in sysfs?
sysfs is a synchronous interface, yes.
+
+ measured = measure_frequency(pmu, SAMPLE_PERIOD);
+ igt_debugfs_dump(fd, "i915_rps_boost_info");
+
+ set_sysfs_freq(sys_min, sys_max);
+
+ igt_spin_batch_free(fd, spin);
+ igt_info("%s(sysfs): Measured %.1fMHz, context %dMhz, expected %dMhz\n",
+ e->name, measured, ifreq, cur);
+ pmu_assert(measured, cur);
+ }
+ }
+ gem_quiescent_gpu(fd);
+
+ close(pmu);
+ gem_context_destroy(fd, ctx);
+
+#undef N_STEPS
+}
+
...
+static void disable_boost(int fd)
+{
+ char *value;
+
+ value = igt_sysfs_get(fd, "gt_RPn_freq_mhz");
+ igt_sysfs_set(fd, "gt_boost_freq_mhz", value);
Why is this needed? kernel will not clamp boost freq as well within
ctx_freq_min/max?
Boosting is a separate mechanism than ctx->freq, as it is performed on
behalf of *another* client.
Right. I meant i915 min|max_freq_context in your upcoming patch.
boost_freq is clamped against max_hw and min_user|soft|context
Understood that setting it to Rpn will make it get clamped in the
expected range :)
Thanks for clarification.
Kernel disabling boost seems more effective than setting boost_freq to Rpn.
This is how we tell the kernel to disable boost, by setting it to a
value that never applies.
The tests try to avoid triggering boosts, but I felt it was sensible to
override the mechanism entirely. We still need various random sleeps
inside the tests in order to give the worker a chance to run, which is a
nuisance.
-Chris
--
Thanks,
Sagar
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
