Quoting Nirmoy (2020-05-29 16:40:53)
> This works correctly most of the times but sometimes
>
> 20k insertions can take more than 8 times of 10k insertion time.
The pressure is on to improve then :)
> Regards,
>
> Nirmoy
>
> On 5/29/20 6:33 PM, Nirmoy Das wrote:
> > This patch introduces fragmentation in the address range
> > and measures time taken by 10k and 20k insertions. ig_frag()
> > will fail if time taken by 20k insertions takes more than 4 times
> > of 10k insertions as we know that insertions scale quadratically.
> > Also tolerate 10% error because of kernel scheduler's jitters.
> >
> > Output:
> > <snip>
> > [ 8092.653518] drm_mm: Testing DRM range manger (struct drm_mm), with random_seed=0x9bfb4117 max_iterations=8192 max_prime=128
> > [ 8092.653520] drm_mm: igt_sanitycheck - ok!
> > [ 8092.653525] igt_debug 0x0000000000000000-0x0000000000000200: 512: free
> > [ 8092.653526] igt_debug 0x0000000000000200-0x0000000000000600: 1024: used
> > [ 8092.653527] igt_debug 0x0000000000000600-0x0000000000000a00: 1024: free
> > [ 8092.653528] igt_debug 0x0000000000000a00-0x0000000000000e00: 1024: used
> > [ 8092.653529] igt_debug 0x0000000000000e00-0x0000000000001000: 512: free
> > [ 8092.653529] igt_debug total: 4096, used 2048 free 2048
> > [ 8112.569813] drm_mm: best fragmented insert of 10000 and 20000 insertions took 504 and 1996 msecs
> > [ 8112.723254] drm_mm: bottom-up fragmented insert of 10000 and 20000 insertions took 44 and 108 msecs
> > [ 8112.813212] drm_mm: top-down fragmented insert of 10000 and 20000 insertions took 40 and 44 msecs
> > [ 8112.847733] drm_mm: evict fragmented insert of 10000 and 20000 insertions took 8 and 20 msecs
> > <snip>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Nirmoy Das <nirmoy.das@xxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/selftests/drm_mm_selftests.h | 1 +
> > drivers/gpu/drm/selftests/test-drm_mm.c | 73 ++++++++++++++++++++
> > 2 files changed, 74 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/selftests/drm_mm_selftests.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/selftests/drm_mm_selftests.h
> > index 6b943ea1c57d..8c87c964176b 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/selftests/drm_mm_selftests.h
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/selftests/drm_mm_selftests.h
> > @@ -14,6 +14,7 @@ selftest(insert, igt_insert)
> > selftest(replace, igt_replace)
> > selftest(insert_range, igt_insert_range)
> > selftest(align, igt_align)
> > +selftest(frag, igt_frag)
> > selftest(align32, igt_align32)
> > selftest(align64, igt_align64)
> > selftest(evict, igt_evict)
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/selftests/test-drm_mm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/selftests/test-drm_mm.c
> > index 9aabe82dcd3a..05d8f3659b4d 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/selftests/test-drm_mm.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/selftests/test-drm_mm.c
> > @@ -1033,6 +1033,79 @@ static int igt_insert_range(void *ignored)
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > +static int get_insert_time(unsigned int num_insert,
> > + const struct insert_mode *mode)
> > +{
> > + struct drm_mm mm;
> > + struct drm_mm_node *nodes, *node, *next;
> > + unsigned int size = 4096, align = 8192;
> > + unsigned long start;
> > + unsigned int i;
> > + int ret = -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + drm_mm_init(&mm, 1, U64_MAX - 2);
> > + nodes = vzalloc(array_size(num_insert, sizeof(*nodes)));
> > + if (!nodes)
> > + goto err;
> > +
> > + start = jiffies;
Use ktime_t start = ktime_now();
> > + for (i = 0; i < num_insert; i++) {
> > + if (!expect_insert(&mm, &nodes[i], size, align, i, mode)) {
> > + pr_err("%s insert failed\n", mode->name);
> > + goto out;
> > + }
> > + }
> > +
> > + ret = jiffies_to_msecs(jiffies - start);
ret = ktime_sub(ktime_now(), start);
The downside to using ktime is remembering it is s64 and so requires care
and attention in doing math.
> > +out:
> > + drm_mm_for_each_node_safe(node, next, &mm)
> > + drm_mm_remove_node(node);
> > + drm_mm_takedown(&mm);
> > + vfree(nodes);
> > +err:
> > + return ret;
> > +
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int igt_frag(void *ignored)
> > +{
> > + const struct insert_mode *mode;
> > + unsigned int insert_time1, insert_time2;
> > + unsigned int insert_size = 10000;
> > + unsigned int scale_factor = 4;
> > + /* tolerate 10% excess insertion duration */
> > + unsigned int error_factor = 110;
> > + int ret = -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + for (mode = insert_modes; mode->name; mode++) {
> > + unsigned int expected_time;
> > +
> > + insert_time1 = get_insert_time(insert_size, mode);
> > + if (insert_time1 < 0)
> > + goto err;
Ah, can you propagate the actual error. I see you are returning EINVAL
for ENOMEM errors. Just wait until it hits and you have to debug why :)
> > + insert_time2 = get_insert_time((insert_size * 2), mode);
> > + if (insert_time2 < 0)
> > + goto err;
> > +
> > + expected_time = (scale_factor * insert_time1 *
> > + error_factor)/100;
> > + if (insert_time2 > expected_time) {
> > + pr_err("%s fragmented insert took more %u msecs\n",
> > + mode->name, insert_time2 - expected_time);
> > + goto err;
> > + }
> > +
> > + pr_info("%s fragmented insert of %u and %u insertions took %u and %u msecs\n",
> > + mode->name, insert_size, insert_size * 2, insert_time1,
> > + insert_time2);
Put the info first before the error. We always want the full details,
with the error message explaining why it's unhappy.
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
