Re: [RFC 00/12] Per client engine busyness

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




On 09/03/2020 22:02, Chris Wilson wrote:
Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2020-03-09 18:31:17)
From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>

Another re-spin of the per-client engine busyness series. Highlights from this
version:

  * Different way of tracking runtime of exited/unreachable context. This time
    round I accumulate those per context/client and engine class, but active
    contexts are kept in a list and tallied on sysfs reads.
  * I had to do a small tweak in the engine release code since I needed the
    GEM context for a bit longer. (So I can accumulate the intel_context runtime
    into it as it is getting freed, because context complete can be late.)
  * PPHWSP method is back and even comes first in the series this time. It still
    can't show the currently running workloads but the software tracking method
    suffers from the CSB processing delay with high frequency and very short
    batches.

I bet it's ksoftirqd, but this could be quite problematic for us.
gem_exec_nop/foo? I wonder if this also ties into how much harder it is
to saturate the GPU with nops from userspace than it is from the kernel.

At least disappointing, or even problematic yes. I had a cunning plan though, to report back max(sw_runtimetime, pphwsp_runtime). Apart from it not being that cunning when things start to systematically drift. Then it effectively becomes pphwsp runtime. Oh well, don't know at the moment, might have to live with pphwsp only.

Regards,

Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx



[Index of Archives]     [AMD Graphics]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux