Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2019-03-26 08:46:34)
>
> On 22/03/2019 09:21, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > +static void measure_semaphore_power(int i915)
> > +{
> > + struct gpu_power power;
> > + unsigned int engine, signaler;
> > +
> > + igt_require(gpu_power_open(&power) == 0);
> > +
> > + for_each_physical_engine(i915, signaler) {
> > + struct gpu_power_sample s_spin[2];
> > + struct gpu_power_sample s_sema[2];
> > + double baseline, total;
> > + int64_t jiffie = 1;
> > + igt_spin_t *spin;
> > +
> > + spin = __igt_spin_batch_new(i915,
> > + .engine = signaler,
> > + .flags = IGT_SPIN_POLL_RUN);
>
> if (!spin)
> continue;
>
> To skip over !can_store_dword, since you are using the low level
> constructor which doesn't check.
True, will need store-dword checking. Too much pain from
spin_batch_new() mystery locking up inside loops has caused me to shy
away from using it.
> > + gem_wait(i915, spin->handle, &jiffie); /* waitboost */
>
> Waitboost why? Will it be deterministic either way?
There's nothing in here that should trigger a waitboost, the idea was to
put the GPU into as pessimistic state as possible to measure peak power
consumption. We could set the freq to min/max via sysfs to see if there
is a significant difference. There's always another test waiting in the
corner.
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
