Re: [PATCH 0/7] Per client engine busyness

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

 




On 18/05/2021 10:40, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:

On 18/05/2021 10:16, Daniel Stone wrote:
Hi,

On Tue, 18 May 2021 at 10:09, Tvrtko Ursulin
<tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I was just wondering if stat(2) and a chrdev major check would be a
solid criteria to more efficiently (compared to parsing the text
content) detect drm files while walking procfs.

Maybe I'm missing something, but is the per-PID walk actually a
measurable performance issue rather than just a bit unpleasant?

Per pid and per each open fd.

As said in the other thread what bothers me a bit in this scheme is that the cost of obtaining GPU usage scales based on non-GPU criteria.

For use case of a top-like tool which shows all processes this is a smaller additional cost, but then for a gpu-top like tool it is somewhat higher.

To further expand, not only cost would scale per pid multiplies per open fd, but to detect which of the fds are DRM I see these three options:

1) Open and parse fdinfo.
2) Name based matching ie /dev/dri/.. something.
3) Stat the symlink target and check for DRM major.

All sound quite sub-optimal to me.

Name based matching is probably the least evil on system resource usage (Keeping the dentry cache too hot? Too many syscalls?), even though fundamentally I don't it is the right approach.

What happens with dup(2) is another question.

Does anyone have any feedback on the /proc/<pid>/gpu idea at all?

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