Hi Chris,
On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 07:54:00PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> As with the realisation for soft-rc6, we respond to idling the engines
> within microseconds, far faster than the response times for HW RC6 and
> RPS. Furthermore, our fast parking upon idle, prevents HW RPS from
> running for many desktop workloads, as the RPS evaluation intervals are
> on the order of tens of milliseconds, but the typical workload is just a
> couple of milliseconds, but yet we still need to determine the best
> frequency for user latency versus power.
>
> Recognising that the HW evaluation intervals are a poor fit, and that
> they were deprecated [in bspec at least] from gen10, start to wean
> ourselves off them and replace the EI with a timer and our accurate
> busy-stats. The principle benefit of manually evaluating RPS intervals
> is that we can be more responsive for better performance and powersaving
> for both spiky workloads and steady-state.
basically, when you unpark, you wait a bit depending on the
workload before actually setting the rps and you do this by
creating a timer.
> +static bool has_busy_stats(struct intel_rps *rps)
> +{
> + struct intel_engine_cs *engine;
> + enum intel_engine_id id;
> +
> + return HAS_EXECLISTS(rps_to_i915(rps)); /* XXX init ordering */
> +
> + for_each_engine(engine, rps_to_gt(rps), id) {
> + if (!intel_engine_supports_stats(engine))
> + return false;
> + }
> +
> + return true;
> +}
mh? what's the exit point here?
Andi
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
