From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02DFBC54FCB for ; Sun, 26 Apr 2020 23:29:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (gabe.freedesktop.org [131.252.210.177]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA55E20700 for ; Sun, 26 Apr 2020 23:29:04 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org CA55E20700 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=etezian.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4064F89B60; Sun, 26 Apr 2020 23:29:04 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: delayed 780 seconds by postgrey-1.36 at gabe; Sun, 26 Apr 2020 23:29:02 UTC Received: from 3.mo6.mail-out.ovh.net (3.mo6.mail-out.ovh.net [178.33.253.26]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E718B89B60 for ; Sun, 26 Apr 2020 23:29:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from player755.ha.ovh.net (unknown [10.108.57.76]) by mo6.mail-out.ovh.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8183320B2E8 for ; Mon, 27 Apr 2020 01:29:01 +0200 (CEST) Received: from etezian.org (213-243-141-64.bb.dnainternet.fi [213.243.141.64]) (Authenticated sender: andi@etezian.org) by player755.ha.ovh.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EC5B811D8534A; Sun, 26 Apr 2020 23:28:58 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2020 02:28:57 +0300 From: Andi Shyti To: Chris Wilson Message-ID: <20200426232857.GC13001@jack.zhora.eu> References: <20200425175751.30358-4-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> <20200425185400.8938-1-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200425185400.8938-1-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> X-Ovh-Tracer-Id: 1818609824947880457 X-VR-SPAMSTATE: OK X-VR-SPAMSCORE: -100 X-VR-SPAMCAUSE: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduhedrheekgddvvdcutefuodetggdotefrodftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfqggfjpdevjffgvefmvefgnecuuegrihhlohhuthemucehtddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenucfjughrpeffhffvuffkfhggtggujgesthdtredttddtvdenucfhrhhomheptehnughiucfuhhihthhiuceorghnughisegvthgviihirghnrdhorhhgqeenucfkpheptddrtddrtddrtddpvddufedrvdegfedrudeguddrieegnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmohguvgepshhmthhpqdhouhhtpdhhvghlohepphhlrgihvghrjeehhedrhhgrrdhovhhhrdhnvghtpdhinhgvtheptddrtddrtddrtddpmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpegrnhguihesvghtvgiiihgrnhdrohhrghdprhgtphhtthhopehinhhtvghlqdhgfhigsehlihhsthhsrdhfrhgvvgguvghskhhtohhprdhorhhg Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/gt: Switch to manual evaluation of RPS X-BeenThere: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Intel graphics driver community testing & development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Sender: "Intel-gfx" Hi Chris, On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 07:54:00PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > As with the realisation for soft-rc6, we respond to idling the engines > within microseconds, far faster than the response times for HW RC6 and > RPS. Furthermore, our fast parking upon idle, prevents HW RPS from > running for many desktop workloads, as the RPS evaluation intervals are > on the order of tens of milliseconds, but the typical workload is just a > couple of milliseconds, but yet we still need to determine the best > frequency for user latency versus power. > > Recognising that the HW evaluation intervals are a poor fit, and that > they were deprecated [in bspec at least] from gen10, start to wean > ourselves off them and replace the EI with a timer and our accurate > busy-stats. The principle benefit of manually evaluating RPS intervals > is that we can be more responsive for better performance and powersaving > for both spiky workloads and steady-state. basically, when you unpark, you wait a bit depending on the workload before actually setting the rps and you do this by creating a timer. > +static bool has_busy_stats(struct intel_rps *rps) > +{ > + struct intel_engine_cs *engine; > + enum intel_engine_id id; > + > + return HAS_EXECLISTS(rps_to_i915(rps)); /* XXX init ordering */ > + > + for_each_engine(engine, rps_to_gt(rps), id) { > + if (!intel_engine_supports_stats(engine)) > + return false; > + } > + > + return true; > +} mh? what's the exit point here? Andi _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx