Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2020-01-30 18:05:03) > > On 16/12/2019 13:09, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > > > On 16/12/2019 12:40, Chris Wilson wrote: > >> Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2019-12-16 12:07:00) > >>> @@ -1389,6 +1415,9 @@ static void execlists_submit_ports(struct > >>> intel_engine_cs *engine) > >>> write_desc(execlists, > >>> rq ? execlists_update_context(rq) : 0, > >>> n); > >>> + > >>> + if (n == 0) > >>> + > >>> intel_context_stats_start(&rq->hw_context->stats); > >> > >> Too early? (Think preemption requests that may not begin for a few > >> hundred ms.) Mark it as started on promotion instead (should be within a > >> few microseconds, if not ideally a few 10 ns)? Then you will also have > >> better symmetry in process_csb, suggesting that we can have a routine > >> that takes the current *execlists->active with fewer code changes. > > > > Good point, I was disliking the csb latencies and completely missed the > > preemption side of things. Symmetry will be much better in more than one > > aspect. > > Downside of having it in process_csb is really bad accuracy with short > batches like gem_exec_nop. :( process_csb() latency I think. Scary. I hope we can get some insight and kill some latency. Usually ends in looking at CPU scheduler traces in dismay. nvme touts "interrupt steering" as crucial to maintaining caches at high packet frequencies. We may also see some gains from staring at profilers, but off the top of my head the worst latency is due to engine->active.lock contention, and associated irq-off periods. > It gets a > little bit better for this particular workload if I move the start point > to submit_ports(), but that has that other problem with preemption. > > After this woes I was hopeful pphwsp context runtime could have an > advantage here, but then I discover it is occasionally not monotonic. At > least with the spammy gem_exec_nop it occasionally but regularly jumps a > tiny bit backward: > > [ 8802.082980] (new=7282101 old=7282063 d=38) > [ 8802.083007] (new=7282139 old=7282101 d=38) > [ 8802.083051] (new=7282250 old=7282139 d=111) > [ 8802.083077] (new=7282214 old=7282250 d=-36) > [ 8802.083103] (new=7282255 old=7282214 d=41) > [ 8802.083129] (new=7282293 old=7282255 d=38) > [ 8802.083155] (new=7282331 old=7282293 d=38) > > Ouch. Time to sleep on it. Also scary. How, how, how??? -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
