* [PATCH] drm/i915: Keep track of active forcewake domains in a bitmask
@ 2016-09-27 12:11 Tvrtko Ursulin
2016-09-27 12:26 ` Chris Wilson
2016-09-27 13:24 ` ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: warning for " Patchwork
0 siblings, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Tvrtko Ursulin @ 2016-09-27 12:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Intel-gfx; +Cc: Paneri, Praveen
From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
There are current places in the code, and there will be more in the
future, which iterate the forcewake domains to find out which ones
are currently active.
To save them from doing this iteration, we can cheaply keep a mask
of active domains in dev_priv->uncore.fw_domains_active.
This has no cost in terms of object size, even manages to shrink it
overall by 368 bytes on my config.
Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
Cc: "Paneri, Praveen" <praveen.paneri@intel.com>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h | 2 ++
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c | 54 ++++++++++++++++---------------------
2 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
index 23bc43d23d2c..4cd727376d1d 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
@@ -588,7 +588,9 @@ struct intel_uncore {
struct intel_uncore_funcs funcs;
unsigned fifo_count;
+
enum forcewake_domains fw_domains;
+ enum forcewake_domains fw_domains_active;
struct intel_uncore_forcewake_domain {
struct drm_i915_private *i915;
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c
index a9b6c936aadd..6cd1e78dc08d 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c
@@ -231,19 +231,21 @@ intel_uncore_fw_release_timer(struct hrtimer *timer)
{
struct intel_uncore_forcewake_domain *domain =
container_of(timer, struct intel_uncore_forcewake_domain, timer);
+ struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = domain->i915;
unsigned long irqflags;
- assert_rpm_device_not_suspended(domain->i915);
+ assert_rpm_device_not_suspended(dev_priv);
- spin_lock_irqsave(&domain->i915->uncore.lock, irqflags);
+ spin_lock_irqsave(&dev_priv->uncore.lock, irqflags);
if (WARN_ON(domain->wake_count == 0))
domain->wake_count++;
- if (--domain->wake_count == 0)
- domain->i915->uncore.funcs.force_wake_put(domain->i915,
- 1 << domain->id);
+ if (--domain->wake_count == 0) {
+ dev_priv->uncore.funcs.force_wake_put(dev_priv, domain->mask);
+ dev_priv->uncore.fw_domains_active &= ~domain->mask;
+ }
- spin_unlock_irqrestore(&domain->i915->uncore.lock, irqflags);
+ spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dev_priv->uncore.lock, irqflags);
return HRTIMER_NORESTART;
}
@@ -254,7 +256,7 @@ void intel_uncore_forcewake_reset(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
unsigned long irqflags;
struct intel_uncore_forcewake_domain *domain;
int retry_count = 100;
- enum forcewake_domains fw = 0, active_domains;
+ enum forcewake_domains fw, active_domains;
/* Hold uncore.lock across reset to prevent any register access
* with forcewake not set correctly. Wait until all pending
@@ -291,10 +293,7 @@ void intel_uncore_forcewake_reset(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
WARN_ON(active_domains);
- for_each_fw_domain(domain, dev_priv)
- if (domain->wake_count)
- fw |= domain->mask;
-
+ fw = dev_priv->uncore.fw_domains_active;
if (fw)
dev_priv->uncore.funcs.force_wake_put(dev_priv, fw);
@@ -443,9 +442,6 @@ static void __intel_uncore_forcewake_get(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
{
struct intel_uncore_forcewake_domain *domain;
- if (!dev_priv->uncore.funcs.force_wake_get)
- return;
-
fw_domains &= dev_priv->uncore.fw_domains;
for_each_fw_domain_masked(domain, fw_domains, dev_priv) {
@@ -453,8 +449,10 @@ static void __intel_uncore_forcewake_get(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
fw_domains &= ~domain->mask;
}
- if (fw_domains)
+ if (fw_domains) {
dev_priv->uncore.funcs.force_wake_get(dev_priv, fw_domains);
+ dev_priv->uncore.fw_domains_active |= fw_domains;
+ }
}
/**
@@ -509,9 +507,6 @@ static void __intel_uncore_forcewake_put(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
{
struct intel_uncore_forcewake_domain *domain;
- if (!dev_priv->uncore.funcs.force_wake_put)
- return;
-
fw_domains &= dev_priv->uncore.fw_domains;
for_each_fw_domain_masked(domain, fw_domains, dev_priv) {
@@ -567,13 +562,10 @@ void intel_uncore_forcewake_put__locked(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
void assert_forcewakes_inactive(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
{
- struct intel_uncore_forcewake_domain *domain;
-
if (!dev_priv->uncore.funcs.force_wake_get)
return;
- for_each_fw_domain(domain, dev_priv)
- WARN_ON(domain->wake_count);
+ WARN_ON(dev_priv->uncore.fw_domains_active);
}
/* We give fast paths for the really cool registers */
@@ -878,18 +870,18 @@ static inline void __force_wake_auto(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
if (WARN_ON(!fw_domains))
return;
- /* Ideally GCC would be constant-fold and eliminate this loop */
- for_each_fw_domain_masked(domain, fw_domains, dev_priv) {
- if (domain->wake_count) {
- fw_domains &= ~domain->mask;
- continue;
- }
+ /* Turn on all requested but inactive supported forcewake domains. */
+ fw_domains &= dev_priv->uncore.fw_domains;
+ fw_domains &= ~dev_priv->uncore.fw_domains_active;
- fw_domain_arm_timer(domain);
- }
+ if (fw_domains) {
+ /* Ideally GCC would be constant-fold and eliminate this loop */
+ for_each_fw_domain_masked(domain, fw_domains, dev_priv)
+ fw_domain_arm_timer(domain);
- if (fw_domains)
dev_priv->uncore.funcs.force_wake_get(dev_priv, fw_domains);
+ dev_priv->uncore.fw_domains_active |= fw_domains;
+ }
}
#define __gen6_read(x) \
--
2.7.4
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: Keep track of active forcewake domains in a bitmask
2016-09-27 12:11 [PATCH] drm/i915: Keep track of active forcewake domains in a bitmask Tvrtko Ursulin
@ 2016-09-27 12:26 ` Chris Wilson
2016-09-27 13:21 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2016-09-27 13:24 ` ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: warning for " Patchwork
1 sibling, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Chris Wilson @ 2016-09-27 12:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tvrtko Ursulin; +Cc: Intel-gfx, Paneri, Praveen
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 01:11:50PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
>
> There are current places in the code, and there will be more in the
> future, which iterate the forcewake domains to find out which ones
> are currently active.
>
> To save them from doing this iteration, we can cheaply keep a mask
> of active domains in dev_priv->uncore.fw_domains_active.
>
> This has no cost in terms of object size, even manages to shrink it
> overall by 368 bytes on my config.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
> Cc: "Paneri, Praveen" <praveen.paneri@intel.com>
Looks solid and should not run afoul of the games played during reset or
suspend.
Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
-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] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: Keep track of active forcewake domains in a bitmask
2016-09-27 12:26 ` Chris Wilson
@ 2016-09-27 13:21 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2016-09-28 3:33 ` Paneri, Praveen
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Tvrtko Ursulin @ 2016-09-27 13:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chris Wilson, Tvrtko Ursulin, Intel-gfx, Paneri, Praveen
On 27/09/2016 13:26, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 01:11:50PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>> From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
>>
>> There are current places in the code, and there will be more in the
>> future, which iterate the forcewake domains to find out which ones
>> are currently active.
>>
>> To save them from doing this iteration, we can cheaply keep a mask
>> of active domains in dev_priv->uncore.fw_domains_active.
>>
>> This has no cost in terms of object size, even manages to shrink it
>> overall by 368 bytes on my config.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
>> Cc: "Paneri, Praveen" <praveen.paneri@intel.com>
> Looks solid and should not run afoul of the games played during reset or
> suspend.
>
> Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Thanks!
Praveen, you can see if this patch would help for your decoupled MMIO
patches, and if you like it you can incrorporate it in your series if
you want?
Regards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: warning for drm/i915: Keep track of active forcewake domains in a bitmask
2016-09-27 12:11 [PATCH] drm/i915: Keep track of active forcewake domains in a bitmask Tvrtko Ursulin
2016-09-27 12:26 ` Chris Wilson
@ 2016-09-27 13:24 ` Patchwork
1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Patchwork @ 2016-09-27 13:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tvrtko Ursulin; +Cc: intel-gfx
== Series Details ==
Series: drm/i915: Keep track of active forcewake domains in a bitmask
URL : https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/12960/
State : warning
== Summary ==
Series 12960v1 drm/i915: Keep track of active forcewake domains in a bitmask
https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/api/1.0/series/12960/revisions/1/mbox/
Test kms_psr_sink_crc:
Subgroup psr_basic:
pass -> DMESG-WARN (fi-skl-6700hq)
Test pm_rpm:
Subgroup basic-pci-d3-state:
dmesg-warn -> PASS (fi-skl-6770hq)
fi-bdw-5557u total:244 pass:229 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:15
fi-bsw-n3050 total:244 pass:202 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:42
fi-bxt-t5700 total:244 pass:213 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:1 skip:30
fi-byt-n2820 total:244 pass:208 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:1 skip:35
fi-hsw-4770 total:244 pass:222 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:22
fi-hsw-4770r total:244 pass:222 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:22
fi-ilk-650 total:244 pass:182 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:2 skip:60
fi-ivb-3520m total:244 pass:219 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:25
fi-ivb-3770 total:244 pass:207 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:37
fi-skl-6260u total:244 pass:230 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:14
fi-skl-6700hq total:244 pass:221 dwarn:1 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:22
fi-skl-6700k total:244 pass:219 dwarn:1 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:24
fi-skl-6770hq total:244 pass:228 dwarn:1 dfail:0 fail:1 skip:14
fi-snb-2520m total:244 pass:208 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:36
fi-snb-2600 total:244 pass:207 dwarn:0 dfail:0 fail:0 skip:37
Results at /archive/results/CI_IGT_test/Patchwork_2581/
67a915c510e83bc3892361db0d85a94275f05359 drm-intel-nightly: 2016y-09m-27d-11h-21m-20s UTC integration manifest
6e81cfc drm/i915: Keep track of active forcewake domains in a bitmask
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: Keep track of active forcewake domains in a bitmask
2016-09-27 13:21 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
@ 2016-09-28 3:33 ` Paneri, Praveen
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Paneri, Praveen @ 2016-09-28 3:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tvrtko Ursulin, Chris Wilson, Tvrtko Ursulin, Intel-gfx
On 9/27/2016 6:51 PM, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>
> On 27/09/2016 13:26, Chris Wilson wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 01:11:50PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>>> From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
>>>
>>> There are current places in the code, and there will be more in the
>>> future, which iterate the forcewake domains to find out which ones
>>> are currently active.
>>>
>>> To save them from doing this iteration, we can cheaply keep a mask
>>> of active domains in dev_priv->uncore.fw_domains_active.
>>>
>>> This has no cost in terms of object size, even manages to shrink it
>>> overall by 368 bytes on my config.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
>>> Cc: "Paneri, Praveen" <praveen.paneri@intel.com>
>> Looks solid and should not run afoul of the games played during reset or
>> suspend.
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
>
> Thanks!
>
> Praveen, you can see if this patch would help for your decoupled MMIO
> patches, and if you like it you can incrorporate it in your series if
> you want?
Thanks for the patch Tvrtko! I can definitely use it :)
>
> Regards,
>
> Tvrtko
>
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2016-09-28 3:33 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2016-09-27 12:11 [PATCH] drm/i915: Keep track of active forcewake domains in a bitmask Tvrtko Ursulin
2016-09-27 12:26 ` Chris Wilson
2016-09-27 13:21 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2016-09-28 3:33 ` Paneri, Praveen
2016-09-27 13:24 ` ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: warning for " Patchwork
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.