Re: [PATCH 4/6] drm/i915/pmu: Add reference counting to the sampling timer

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

 




On 13/05/2023 00:44, Umesh Nerlige Ramappa wrote:
On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 04:20:19PM -0700, Dixit, Ashutosh wrote:
On Fri, 12 May 2023 15:44:00 -0700, Umesh Nerlige Ramappa wrote:

On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 03:29:03PM -0700, Dixit, Ashutosh wrote:
> On Fri, 05 May 2023 17:58:14 -0700, Umesh Nerlige Ramappa wrote:
>>
>
> Hi Umesh/Tvrtko,
>
>> From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> We do not want to have timers per tile and waste CPU cycles and energy via
>> multiple wake-up sources, for a relatively un-important task of PMU
>> sampling, so keeping a single timer works well. But we also do not want
>> the first GT which goes idle to turn off the timer.
>>
>> Add some reference counting, via a mask of unparked GTs, to solve this.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Umesh Nerlige Ramappa <umesh.nerlige.ramappa@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pmu.c | 12 ++++++++++--
>>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pmu.h |  4 ++++
>>  2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pmu.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pmu.c
>> index 2b63ee31e1b3..669a42e44082 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pmu.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pmu.c
>> @@ -251,7 +251,9 @@ void i915_pmu_gt_parked(struct intel_gt *gt)
>>     * Signal sampling timer to stop if only engine events are enabled and
>>     * GPU went idle.
>>     */
>> -    pmu->timer_enabled = pmu_needs_timer(pmu, false);
>> +    pmu->unparked &= ~BIT(gt->info.id);
>> +    if (pmu->unparked == 0)
>> +        pmu->timer_enabled = pmu_needs_timer(pmu, false);
>>
>>    spin_unlock_irq(&pmu->lock);
>>  }
>> @@ -268,7 +270,10 @@ void i915_pmu_gt_unparked(struct intel_gt *gt)
>>    /*
>>     * Re-enable sampling timer when GPU goes active.
>>     */
>> -    __i915_pmu_maybe_start_timer(pmu);
>> +    if (pmu->unparked == 0)
>> +        __i915_pmu_maybe_start_timer(pmu);
>> +
>> +    pmu->unparked |= BIT(gt->info.id);
>>
>>    spin_unlock_irq(&pmu->lock);
>>  }
>> @@ -438,6 +443,9 @@ static enum hrtimer_restart i915_sample(struct hrtimer *hrtimer)
>>     */
>>
>>    for_each_gt(gt, i915, i) {
>> +        if (!(pmu->unparked & BIT(i)))
>> +            continue;
>> +
>
> This is not correct. In this series we are at least sampling frequencies > (calling frequency_sample) even when GT is parked. So these 3 lines should be
> deleted. engines_sample will get called and will return without doing
> anything if engine events are disabled.

Not sure I understand. This is checking pmu->'un'parked bits.

Sorry, my bad. Not "engines_sample will get called and will return without doing anything if engine events are disabled" but "engines_sample will get called and will return without doing anything if GT is not awake". This is
the same as the previous behavior before this series.

Umesh and I discussed this but writing this out in case Tvrtko takes a
look.

Sounds good, Dropping the check here in the new revision.

I think it is safe to not have the check, but I didn't quite understand the "this is not correct" part. I can only see the argument that it could be redundant, not that it is incorrect.

In which case I think it should better stay since it is way more efficient, given this gets called at 200Hz, than the *atomic* atomic_inc_not_zero (from intel_wakeref_get_if_active).

Regards,

Tvrtko



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

  Powered by Linux