* [PATCH] drm/i915: avoid wait_for_atomic() in non-atomic host2guc_action()
@ 2016-07-06 14:30 Dave Gordon
2016-07-06 14:45 ` Chris Wilson
2016-07-06 15:17 ` ✓ Ro.CI.BAT: success for " Patchwork
0 siblings, 2 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Dave Gordon @ 2016-07-06 14:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: intel-gfx
Rather than using wait_for_atomic() when chacking for a response from
the GuC, we can get the effect of a hybrid spin/sleep wait by breaking
it into two stages. First, spin-wait for up to 10us to minimise latency
for "quick" commands; then, if that times out, sleep-wait for up 10ms
(the maximum allowed for a "slow" command).
Being able to do this depends on the recent patch
18f4b84 drm/i915: Use atomic waits for short non-atomic ones
and is similar to the hybrid approach in
1758b90 drm/i915: Use a hybrid scheme for fast register waits
(although we can't use that as-is, because that interface doesn't quite
match what we need here).
Signed-off-by: Dave Gordon <david.s.gordon@intel.com>
Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_guc_submission.c | 10 ++++++++--
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_guc_submission.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_guc_submission.c
index bfc8bf6..2112e02 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_guc_submission.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_guc_submission.c
@@ -97,8 +97,14 @@ static int host2guc_action(struct intel_guc *guc, u32 *data, u32 len)
I915_WRITE(HOST2GUC_INTERRUPT, HOST2GUC_TRIGGER);
- /* No HOST2GUC command should take longer than 10ms */
- ret = wait_for_atomic(host2guc_action_response(dev_priv, &status), 10);
+ /*
+ * Fast commands should complete in less than 10us, so sample quickly
+ * up to that length of time, then switch to a slower sleep-wait loop.
+ * No HOST2GUC command should ever take longer than 10ms.
+ */
+ ret = wait_for_us(host2guc_action_response(dev_priv, &status), 10);
+ if (ret)
+ ret = wait_for(host2guc_action_response(dev_priv, &status), 10);
if (status != GUC2HOST_STATUS_SUCCESS) {
/*
* Either the GuC explicitly returned an error (which
--
1.9.1
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: avoid wait_for_atomic() in non-atomic host2guc_action()
2016-07-06 14:30 [PATCH] drm/i915: avoid wait_for_atomic() in non-atomic host2guc_action() Dave Gordon
@ 2016-07-06 14:45 ` Chris Wilson
2016-07-06 15:17 ` ✓ Ro.CI.BAT: success for " Patchwork
1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Chris Wilson @ 2016-07-06 14:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dave Gordon; +Cc: intel-gfx
On Wed, Jul 06, 2016 at 03:30:11PM +0100, Dave Gordon wrote:
> Rather than using wait_for_atomic() when chacking for a response from
> the GuC, we can get the effect of a hybrid spin/sleep wait by breaking
> it into two stages. First, spin-wait for up to 10us to minimise latency
> for "quick" commands; then, if that times out, sleep-wait for up 10ms
> (the maximum allowed for a "slow" command).
>
> Being able to do this depends on the recent patch
> 18f4b84 drm/i915: Use atomic waits for short non-atomic ones
> and is similar to the hybrid approach in
> 1758b90 drm/i915: Use a hybrid scheme for fast register waits
> (although we can't use that as-is, because that interface doesn't quite
> match what we need here).
Returning the status from wait_for_register would help for one other
callsite (gmbus iirc), not worth the conversion.
> Signed-off-by: Dave Gordon <david.s.gordon@intel.com>
> Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
> Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
This entire sequence is under the FORCEWAKE_ALL (from inspection of
intel_uncore, I think you only need FORCEWAKE_BLITTER), you could use
I915_WRITE_FW / I915_READ_FW here - you lose both the spinlock and
auto-arming on each read, but you also lose the mmiotracing. (Though
realistically we should use the general mmiotracer and fix it if it
doesn't work for us.)
-Chris
--
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* ✓ Ro.CI.BAT: success for drm/i915: avoid wait_for_atomic() in non-atomic host2guc_action()
2016-07-06 14:30 [PATCH] drm/i915: avoid wait_for_atomic() in non-atomic host2guc_action() Dave Gordon
2016-07-06 14:45 ` Chris Wilson
@ 2016-07-06 15:17 ` Patchwork
2016-07-06 15:25 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
1 sibling, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Patchwork @ 2016-07-06 15:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dave Gordon; +Cc: intel-gfx
== Series Details ==
Series: drm/i915: avoid wait_for_atomic() in non-atomic host2guc_action()
URL : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/9565/
State : success
== Summary ==
Series 9565v1 drm/i915: avoid wait_for_atomic() in non-atomic host2guc_action()
http://patchwork.freedesktop.org/api/1.0/series/9565/revisions/1/mbox
Test drv_module_reload_basic:
skip -> PASS (ro-snb-i7-2620M)
fi-kbl-qkkr total:235 pass:163 dwarn:29 dfail:0 fail:2 skip:41
fi-skl-i5-6260u total:235 pass:207 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:2 skip:26
fi-snb-i7-2600 total:235 pass:179 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:2 skip:54
ro-bdw-i5-5250u total:229 pass:204 dwarn:1 dfail:1 fail:0 skip:23
ro-bdw-i7-5557U total:229 pass:204 dwarn:2 dfail:1 fail:0 skip:22
ro-bdw-i7-5600u total:229 pass:190 dwarn:0 dfail:1 fail:0 skip:38
ro-bsw-n3050 total:229 pass:177 dwarn:0 dfail:1 fail:2 skip:49
ro-byt-n2820 total:229 pass:180 dwarn:0 dfail:1 fail:3 skip:45
ro-hsw-i3-4010u total:229 pass:197 dwarn:0 dfail:1 fail:0 skip:31
ro-hsw-i7-4770r total:229 pass:197 dwarn:0 dfail:1 fail:0 skip:31
ro-ilk-i7-620lm total:229 pass:157 dwarn:0 dfail:1 fail:1 skip:70
ro-ilk1-i5-650 total:224 pass:157 dwarn:0 dfail:1 fail:1 skip:65
ro-ivb-i7-3770 total:229 pass:188 dwarn:0 dfail:1 fail:0 skip:40
ro-skl3-i5-6260u total:229 pass:208 dwarn:1 dfail:1 fail:0 skip:19
ro-snb-i7-2620M total:229 pass:179 dwarn:0 dfail:1 fail:1 skip:48
Results at /archive/results/CI_IGT_test/RO_Patchwork_1438/
39b147d drm-intel-nightly: 2016y-07m-06d-12h-15m-56s UTC integration manifest
803f1c2 drm/i915: avoid wait_for_atomic() in non-atomic host2guc_action()
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: ✓ Ro.CI.BAT: success for drm/i915: avoid wait_for_atomic() in non-atomic host2guc_action()
2016-07-06 15:17 ` ✓ Ro.CI.BAT: success for " Patchwork
@ 2016-07-06 15:25 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Tvrtko Ursulin @ 2016-07-06 15:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: intel-gfx, Dave Gordon
On 06/07/16 16:17, Patchwork wrote:
> == Series Details ==
>
> Series: drm/i915: avoid wait_for_atomic() in non-atomic host2guc_action()
> URL : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/9565/
> State : success
>
> == Summary ==
>
> Series 9565v1 drm/i915: avoid wait_for_atomic() in non-atomic host2guc_action()
> http://patchwork.freedesktop.org/api/1.0/series/9565/revisions/1/mbox
>
> Test drv_module_reload_basic:
> skip -> PASS (ro-snb-i7-2620M)
>
> fi-kbl-qkkr total:235 pass:163 dwarn:29 dfail:0 fail:2 skip:41
> fi-skl-i5-6260u total:235 pass:207 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:2 skip:26
> fi-snb-i7-2600 total:235 pass:179 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:2 skip:54
> ro-bdw-i5-5250u total:229 pass:204 dwarn:1 dfail:1 fail:0 skip:23
> ro-bdw-i7-5557U total:229 pass:204 dwarn:2 dfail:1 fail:0 skip:22
> ro-bdw-i7-5600u total:229 pass:190 dwarn:0 dfail:1 fail:0 skip:38
> ro-bsw-n3050 total:229 pass:177 dwarn:0 dfail:1 fail:2 skip:49
> ro-byt-n2820 total:229 pass:180 dwarn:0 dfail:1 fail:3 skip:45
> ro-hsw-i3-4010u total:229 pass:197 dwarn:0 dfail:1 fail:0 skip:31
> ro-hsw-i7-4770r total:229 pass:197 dwarn:0 dfail:1 fail:0 skip:31
> ro-ilk-i7-620lm total:229 pass:157 dwarn:0 dfail:1 fail:1 skip:70
> ro-ilk1-i5-650 total:224 pass:157 dwarn:0 dfail:1 fail:1 skip:65
> ro-ivb-i7-3770 total:229 pass:188 dwarn:0 dfail:1 fail:0 skip:40
> ro-skl3-i5-6260u total:229 pass:208 dwarn:1 dfail:1 fail:0 skip:19
> ro-snb-i7-2620M total:229 pass:179 dwarn:0 dfail:1 fail:1 skip:48
>
> Results at /archive/results/CI_IGT_test/RO_Patchwork_1438/
>
> 39b147d drm-intel-nightly: 2016y-07m-06d-12h-15m-56s UTC integration manifest
> 803f1c2 drm/i915: avoid wait_for_atomic() in non-atomic host2guc_action()
Merged to dinq, thanks for the patch and review.
Regards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2016-07-06 15:25 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2016-07-06 14:30 [PATCH] drm/i915: avoid wait_for_atomic() in non-atomic host2guc_action() Dave Gordon
2016-07-06 14:45 ` Chris Wilson
2016-07-06 15:17 ` ✓ Ro.CI.BAT: success for " Patchwork
2016-07-06 15:25 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.