On Fri, 17 Feb 2023 17:57:02 -0800, Dixit, Ashutosh wrote:
>
> On Fri, 17 Feb 2023 16:05:50 -0800, Umesh Nerlige Ramappa wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 12:58:18PM -0800, Dixit, Ashutosh wrote:
> > > On Thu, 16 Feb 2023 16:58:48 -0800, Umesh Nerlige Ramappa wrote:
> > >>
> > >
> > > Hi Umesh, couple of nits below.
> > >
> > >> Some of the newer OA formats are not powers of 2. For those formats,
> > >> adjust the hw_tail accordingly when checking for new reports.
> > >>
> > >> Signed-off-by: Umesh Nerlige Ramappa <umesh.nerlige.ramappa@xxxxxxxxx>
> > >> ---
> > >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_perf.c | 50 ++++++++++++++++++--------------
> > >> 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
> > >>
> > >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_perf.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_perf.c
> > >> index 9715b964aa1e..d3a1892c93be 100644
> > >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_perf.c
> > >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_perf.c
> > >> @@ -542,6 +542,7 @@ static bool oa_buffer_check_unlocked(struct i915_perf_stream *stream)
> > >> bool pollin;
> > >> u32 hw_tail;
> > >> u64 now;
> > >> + u32 partial_report_size;
> > >>
> > >> /* We have to consider the (unlikely) possibility that read() errors
> > >> * could result in an OA buffer reset which might reset the head and
> > >> @@ -551,10 +552,16 @@ static bool oa_buffer_check_unlocked(struct i915_perf_stream *stream)
> > >>
> > >> hw_tail = stream->perf->ops.oa_hw_tail_read(stream);
> > >>
> > >> - /* The tail pointer increases in 64 byte increments,
> > >> - * not in report_size steps...
> > >> + /* The tail pointer increases in 64 byte increments, whereas report
> > >> + * sizes need not be integral multiples or 64 or powers of 2.
> > > s/or/of/ ---------------------------------------^
> > >
> > > Also I think report sizes can only be multiples of 64, the ones we have
> > > seen till now definitely are. Also the lower 6 bits of tail pointer are 0.
> >
> > Agree, the only addition to the old comment should be that the new reports
> > may not be powers of 2.
> >
> > >
> > >> + * Compute potentially partially landed report in the OA buffer
> > >> */
> > >> - hw_tail &= ~(report_size - 1);
> > >> + partial_report_size = OA_TAKEN(hw_tail, stream->oa_buffer.tail);
> > >> + partial_report_size %= report_size;
> > >> +
> > >> + /* Subtract partial amount off the tail */
> > >> + hw_tail = gtt_offset + ((hw_tail - partial_report_size) &
> > >> + (stream->oa_buffer.vma->size - 1));
> > >
> > > Couple of questions here because OA_TAKEN uses OA_BUFFER_SIZE and the above
> > > expression uses stream->oa_buffer.vma->size:
> > >
> > > 1. Is 'OA_BUFFER_SIZE == stream->oa_buffer.vma->size'? We seem to be using
> > > the two interchaneably in the code.
> >
> > Yes. I think the code was updated to use vma->size when support for
> > selecting OA buffer size along with large OA buffers was added, but we
> > haven't pushed that upstream yet. Since I have cherry-picked patches here,
> > there is some inconsistency. I would just change this patch to use
> > OA_BUFFER_SIZE for now.
> >
> > > 2. If yes, can we add an assert about this in alloc_oa_buffer?
> >
> > If I change to OA_BUFFER_SIZE, then okay to skip assert?
>
> Yes.
>
> > Do you suspect that the vma size may actually differ from what we
> > requested?
>
> Not sure how shmem objects are allocated but my guess would be that for a
> nice whole size like 16 M they the vma size will be the same. So ok to just
> use OA_BUFFER_SIZE in a couple of places in this patch and skip the
> assert. As long as vma_size >= OA_BUFFER_SIZE we are ok.
>
> >
> > > 3. Can the above expression be changed to:
> > >
> > > hw_tail = gtt_offset + OA_TAKEN(hw_tail, partial_report_size);
> >
> > Not if hw_tail has rolled over, but stream->oa_buffer.tail hasn't.
>
> Why not, the two expressions are exactly the same? And anyway
> stream->oa_buffer.tail is already handled in the first OA_TAKEN expression.
Basically, for me OA_TAKEN is a "circular diff" (for a power-of-2 sized
circular buffer), so anywhere we have these "circular diff" opereations we
should be able to replace them by OA_TAKEN.
> > >
> > > It would be good to use the same construct if possible. Maybe we can even
> > > change OA_TAKEN to something like:
> > >
> > > #define OA_TAKEN(tail, head) ((tail - head) & (stream->oa_buffer.vma->size - 1))
> >
> > I am thinking of changing to OA_BUFFER_SIZE at other places in this
> > patch. Thoughts?
>
> Sure, let's do that, there are just 2 places.
>
> > >
> > >>
> > >> now = ktime_get_mono_fast_ns();
> > >>
> > >> @@ -677,6 +684,8 @@ static int append_oa_sample(struct i915_perf_stream *stream,
> > >> {
> > >> int report_size = stream->oa_buffer.format->size;
> > >> struct drm_i915_perf_record_header header;
> > >> + int report_size_partial;
> > >> + u8 *oa_buf_end;
> > >>
> > >> header.type = DRM_I915_PERF_RECORD_SAMPLE;
> > >> header.pad = 0;
> > >> @@ -690,8 +699,21 @@ static int append_oa_sample(struct i915_perf_stream *stream,
> > >> return -EFAULT;
> > >> buf += sizeof(header);
> > >>
> > >> - if (copy_to_user(buf, report, report_size))
> > >> + oa_buf_end = stream->oa_buffer.vaddr +
> > >> + stream->oa_buffer.vma->size;
> > >> + report_size_partial = oa_buf_end - report;
> > >> +
> > >> + if (report_size_partial < report_size) {
> > >> + if (copy_to_user(buf, report, report_size_partial))
> > >> + return -EFAULT;
> > >> + buf += report_size_partial;
> > >> +
> > >> + if (copy_to_user(buf, stream->oa_buffer.vaddr,
> > >> + report_size - report_size_partial))
> > >> + return -EFAULT;
> > >> + } else if (copy_to_user(buf, report, report_size)) {
> > >> return -EFAULT;
> > >> + }
> > >>
> > >> (*offset) += header.size;
> > >>
> > >> @@ -759,8 +781,8 @@ static int gen8_append_oa_reports(struct i915_perf_stream *stream,
> > >> * all a power of two).
> > >> */
> > >> if (drm_WARN_ONCE(&uncore->i915->drm,
> > >> - head > OA_BUFFER_SIZE || head % report_size ||
> > >> - tail > OA_BUFFER_SIZE || tail % report_size,
> > >> + head > OA_BUFFER_SIZE ||
> > >> + tail > OA_BUFFER_SIZE,
> > >
> > > The comment above the if () also needs to be fixed.
> >
> > Will fix
> >
> > >
> > > Also, does it make sense to have 'head % 64 || tail % 64' checks above? As
> > > I was saying above head and tail will be 64 byte aligned.
> >
> > Since head and tail are derived from HW registers and the HW only
> > increments them by 64, we should be good even without the %64.
>
> OK.
>
> Thanks.
> --
> Ashutosh
