On 6/13/2023 2:25 PM, Dixit, Ashutosh wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jun 2023 12:42:13 -0700, Vinay Belgaumkar wrote:
Hi Vinay,
Verify that SLPC API works as expected after a suspend. Added
another subtest that does multiple GT resets and checks freq api
works as expected after each one.
We now check requested frequency instead of soft min/max after a
reset or suspend. That ensures the soft limits got applied
correctly at init. Also, disable efficient freq before starting the
test which allows current freq to be consistent with SLPC min freq.
v2: Restore freq in exit handler (Ashutosh)
Signed-off-by: Vinay Belgaumkar <vinay.belgaumkar@xxxxxxxxx>
---
tests/i915/i915_pm_freq_api.c | 89 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
1 file changed, 69 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tests/i915/i915_pm_freq_api.c b/tests/i915/i915_pm_freq_api.c
index 9005cd220..4e1d4edca 100644
--- a/tests/i915/i915_pm_freq_api.c
+++ b/tests/i915/i915_pm_freq_api.c
@@ -18,6 +18,12 @@
*
* SUBTEST: freq-reset
* Description: Test basic freq API works after a reset
+ *
+ * SUBTEST: freq-reset-multiple
+ * Description: Test basic freq API works after multiple resets
+ *
+ * SUBTEST: freq-suspend
+ * Description: Test basic freq API works after a runtime suspend
*/
IGT_TEST_DESCRIPTION("Test SLPC freq API");
@@ -79,31 +85,64 @@ static void test_freq_basic_api(int dirfd, int gt)
}
-static void test_reset(int i915, int dirfd, int gt)
+static void test_reset(int i915, int dirfd, int gt, int count)
{
uint32_t rpn = get_freq(dirfd, RPS_RPn_FREQ_MHZ);
int fd;
+ for (int i = 0; i < count; i++) {
+ igt_assert_f(set_freq(dirfd, RPS_MIN_FREQ_MHZ, rpn) > 0,
+ "Failed after %d good cycles\n", i);
+ igt_assert_f(set_freq(dirfd, RPS_MAX_FREQ_MHZ, rpn) > 0,
+ "Failed after %d good cycles\n", i);
+ usleep(ACT_FREQ_LATENCY_US);
+ igt_assert_f(get_freq(dirfd, RPS_CUR_FREQ_MHZ) == rpn,
+ "Failed after %d good cycles\n", i);
+
+ /* Manually trigger a GT reset */
+ fd = igt_debugfs_gt_open(i915, gt, "reset", O_WRONLY);
+ igt_require(fd >= 0);
+ igt_ignore_warn(write(fd, "1\n", 2));
No need for 'usleep(ACT_FREQ_LATENCY_US)' here?
Don't think we need it. The delay is specifically for H2G calls. I
haven't seen the need for a delay here in the limited testing I have done.
+
+ igt_assert_f(get_freq(dirfd, RPS_CUR_FREQ_MHZ) == rpn,
+ "Failed after %d good cycles\n", i);
+ }
+ close(fd);
+}
+
+static void test_suspend(int i915, int dirfd, int gt)
+{
+ uint32_t rpn = get_freq(dirfd, RPS_RPn_FREQ_MHZ);
+
igt_assert(set_freq(dirfd, RPS_MIN_FREQ_MHZ, rpn) > 0);
igt_assert(set_freq(dirfd, RPS_MAX_FREQ_MHZ, rpn) > 0);
usleep(ACT_FREQ_LATENCY_US);
- igt_assert(get_freq(dirfd, RPS_MIN_FREQ_MHZ) == rpn);
+ igt_assert(get_freq(dirfd, RPS_CUR_FREQ_MHZ) == rpn);
- /* Manually trigger a GT reset */
- fd = igt_debugfs_gt_open(i915, gt, "reset", O_WRONLY);
- igt_require(fd >= 0);
- igt_ignore_warn(write(fd, "1\n", 2));
- close(fd);
+ /* Manually trigger a suspend */
+ igt_system_suspend_autoresume(SUSPEND_STATE_S3,
+ SUSPEND_TEST_NONE);
No need for 'usleep(ACT_FREQ_LATENCY_US)' here?
I believe this is a blocking call and will only return after resume
completes (when console comes back), so delay is not needed.
- igt_assert(get_freq(dirfd, RPS_MIN_FREQ_MHZ) == rpn);
- igt_assert(get_freq(dirfd, RPS_MAX_FREQ_MHZ) == rpn);
+ igt_assert(get_freq(dirfd, RPS_CUR_FREQ_MHZ) == rpn);
}
-igt_main
+int i915 = -1;
+uint32_t *stash_min, *stash_max;
nit: could we maybe make these fixed size array's (2 or 4 entries) and drop
the malloc's for these, malloc's seem excessive in this case.
What if this is a multi-card device? Though, one thing missing here is
the 'free' for the allocations. Will add that.
+
+static void restore_sysfs_freq(int sig)
{
- int i915 = -1;
- uint32_t *stash_min, *stash_max;
+ int dirfd, gt;
+ /* Restore frequencies */
+ for_each_sysfs_gt_dirfd(i915, dirfd, gt) {
+ igt_pm_ignore_slpc_efficient_freq(i915, dirfd, false);
+ igt_assert(set_freq(dirfd, RPS_MAX_FREQ_MHZ, stash_max[gt]) > 0);
+ igt_assert(set_freq(dirfd, RPS_MIN_FREQ_MHZ, stash_min[gt]) > 0);
nit: I would remove the igt_assert's from here, it's basically a best
effort restore so we try to restore everything even if we fail.
If we fail, it means the api is not working, so we should flag an error.
+ }
+ close(i915);
+}
+igt_main
+{
igt_fixture {
int num_gts, dirfd, gt;
@@ -122,7 +161,9 @@ igt_main
for_each_sysfs_gt_dirfd(i915, dirfd, gt) {
stash_min[gt] = get_freq(dirfd, RPS_MIN_FREQ_MHZ);
stash_max[gt] = get_freq(dirfd, RPS_MAX_FREQ_MHZ);
+ igt_pm_ignore_slpc_efficient_freq(i915, dirfd, true);
}
+ igt_install_exit_handler(restore_sysfs_freq);
}
igt_describe("Test basic API for controlling min/max GT frequency");
@@ -140,16 +181,24 @@ igt_main
for_each_sysfs_gt_dirfd(i915, dirfd, gt)
igt_dynamic_f("gt%u", gt)
- test_reset(i915, dirfd, gt);
+ test_reset(i915, dirfd, gt, 1);
}
- igt_fixture {
+ igt_describe("Test basic freq API works after multiple resets");
+ igt_subtest_with_dynamic_f("freq-reset-multiple") {
int dirfd, gt;
- /* Restore frequencies */
- for_each_sysfs_gt_dirfd(i915, dirfd, gt) {
- igt_assert(set_freq(dirfd, RPS_MAX_FREQ_MHZ, stash_max[gt]) > 0);
- igt_assert(set_freq(dirfd, RPS_MIN_FREQ_MHZ, stash_min[gt]) > 0);
- }
- close(i915);
+
+ for_each_sysfs_gt_dirfd(i915, dirfd, gt)
+ igt_dynamic_f("gt%u", gt)
+ test_reset(i915, dirfd, gt, 50);
+ }
Do we need both "freq-reset" and "freq-reset-multiple"? Since
"freq-reset" is a subset of "freq-reset-multiple"? Or we want "freq-reset"
to run as part of BAT and "freq-reset-multiple" as part of shards e.g.?
yes, something like that. We don't want to run 50 resets every time BAT
runs.
Thanks,
Vinay.
+
+ igt_describe("Test basic freq API works after suspend");
+ igt_subtest_with_dynamic_f("freq-suspend") {
+ int dirfd, gt;
+
+ for_each_sysfs_gt_dirfd(i915, dirfd, gt)
+ igt_dynamic_f("gt%u", gt)
+ test_suspend(i915, dirfd, gt);
}
}
--
2.38.1
Thanks.
--
Ashutosh
