From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com>
To: Daniel Stone <daniel@fooishbar.org>
Cc: "nouveau@lists.freedesktop.org" <nouveau@lists.freedesktop.org>,
Intel Graphics Development <Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
Maling list - DRI developers <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
Simon Ser <contact@emersion.fr>,
"Koenig, Christian" <Christian.Koenig@amd.com>,
"Nieto, David M" <David.Nieto@amd.com>
Subject: Re: [Nouveau] [PATCH 0/7] Per client engine busyness
Date: Tue, 18 May 2021 10:40:22 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <71428a10-4b2f-dbbf-7678-7487f9eda6a5@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPj87rOL7SEVXoH1rWH9ypj7idRmVPLXzmEsdVqFdVjsMh5PbA@mail.gmail.com>
On 18/05/2021 10:16, Daniel Stone wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, 18 May 2021 at 10:09, Tvrtko Ursulin
> <tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>> I was just wondering if stat(2) and a chrdev major check would be a
>> solid criteria to more efficiently (compared to parsing the text
>> content) detect drm files while walking procfs.
>
> Maybe I'm missing something, but is the per-PID walk actually a
> measurable performance issue rather than just a bit unpleasant?
Per pid and per each open fd.
As said in the other thread what bothers me a bit in this scheme is that
the cost of obtaining GPU usage scales based on non-GPU criteria.
For use case of a top-like tool which shows all processes this is a
smaller additional cost, but then for a gpu-top like tool it is somewhat
higher.
Regards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Nouveau mailing list
Nouveau@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/nouveau
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com>
To: Daniel Stone <daniel@fooishbar.org>
Cc: "jhubbard@nvidia.com" <jhubbard@nvidia.com>,
"nouveau@lists.freedesktop.org" <nouveau@lists.freedesktop.org>,
Intel Graphics Development <Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
Maling list - DRI developers <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
"Koenig, Christian" <Christian.Koenig@amd.com>,
"aritger@nvidia.com" <aritger@nvidia.com>,
"Nieto, David M" <David.Nieto@amd.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Per client engine busyness
Date: Tue, 18 May 2021 10:40:22 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <71428a10-4b2f-dbbf-7678-7487f9eda6a5@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPj87rOL7SEVXoH1rWH9ypj7idRmVPLXzmEsdVqFdVjsMh5PbA@mail.gmail.com>
On 18/05/2021 10:16, Daniel Stone wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, 18 May 2021 at 10:09, Tvrtko Ursulin
> <tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>> I was just wondering if stat(2) and a chrdev major check would be a
>> solid criteria to more efficiently (compared to parsing the text
>> content) detect drm files while walking procfs.
>
> Maybe I'm missing something, but is the per-PID walk actually a
> measurable performance issue rather than just a bit unpleasant?
Per pid and per each open fd.
As said in the other thread what bothers me a bit in this scheme is that
the cost of obtaining GPU usage scales based on non-GPU criteria.
For use case of a top-like tool which shows all processes this is a
smaller additional cost, but then for a gpu-top like tool it is somewhat
higher.
Regards,
Tvrtko
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com>
To: Daniel Stone <daniel@fooishbar.org>
Cc: "jhubbard@nvidia.com" <jhubbard@nvidia.com>,
"nouveau@lists.freedesktop.org" <nouveau@lists.freedesktop.org>,
Intel Graphics Development <Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
Maling list - DRI developers <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
Simon Ser <contact@emersion.fr>,
"Koenig, Christian" <Christian.Koenig@amd.com>,
"aritger@nvidia.com" <aritger@nvidia.com>,
"Nieto, David M" <David.Nieto@amd.com>
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 0/7] Per client engine busyness
Date: Tue, 18 May 2021 10:40:22 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <71428a10-4b2f-dbbf-7678-7487f9eda6a5@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPj87rOL7SEVXoH1rWH9ypj7idRmVPLXzmEsdVqFdVjsMh5PbA@mail.gmail.com>
On 18/05/2021 10:16, Daniel Stone wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, 18 May 2021 at 10:09, Tvrtko Ursulin
> <tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>> I was just wondering if stat(2) and a chrdev major check would be a
>> solid criteria to more efficiently (compared to parsing the text
>> content) detect drm files while walking procfs.
>
> Maybe I'm missing something, but is the per-PID walk actually a
> measurable performance issue rather than just a bit unpleasant?
Per pid and per each open fd.
As said in the other thread what bothers me a bit in this scheme is that
the cost of obtaining GPU usage scales based on non-GPU criteria.
For use case of a top-like tool which shows all processes this is a
smaller additional cost, but then for a gpu-top like tool it is somewhat
higher.
Regards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-05-18 9:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 103+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-05-13 10:59 [PATCH 0/7] Per client engine busyness Tvrtko Ursulin
2021-05-13 10:59 ` [Intel-gfx] " Tvrtko Ursulin
2021-05-13 10:59 ` [PATCH 1/7] drm/i915: Expose list of clients in sysfs Tvrtko Ursulin
2021-05-13 10:59 ` [Intel-gfx] " Tvrtko Ursulin
2021-05-13 10:59 ` [PATCH 2/7] drm/i915: Update client name on context create Tvrtko Ursulin
2021-05-13 10:59 ` [Intel-gfx] " Tvrtko Ursulin
2021-05-13 10:59 ` [PATCH 3/7] drm/i915: Make GEM contexts track DRM clients Tvrtko Ursulin
2021-05-13 10:59 ` [Intel-gfx] " Tvrtko Ursulin
2021-05-13 10:59 ` [PATCH 4/7] drm/i915: Track runtime spent in closed and unreachable GEM contexts Tvrtko Ursulin
2021-05-13 10:59 ` [Intel-gfx] " Tvrtko Ursulin
2021-05-13 11:00 ` [PATCH 5/7] drm/i915: Track all user contexts per client Tvrtko Ursulin
2021-05-13 11:00 ` [Intel-gfx] " Tvrtko Ursulin
2021-05-13 11:00 ` [PATCH 6/7] drm/i915: Track context current active time Tvrtko Ursulin
2021-05-13 11:00 ` [Intel-gfx] " Tvrtko Ursulin
2021-05-13 11:00 ` [PATCH 7/7] drm/i915: Expose per-engine client busyness Tvrtko Ursulin
2021-05-13 11:00 ` [Intel-gfx] " Tvrtko Ursulin
2021-05-13 11:28 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.CHECKPATCH: warning for Per client engine busyness Patchwork
2021-05-13 11:30 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.SPARSE: " Patchwork
2021-05-13 11:59 ` [Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success " Patchwork
2021-05-13 15:48 ` [PATCH 0/7] " Alex Deucher
2021-05-13 15:48 ` [Intel-gfx] " Alex Deucher
2021-05-13 16:40 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2021-05-13 16:40 ` [Intel-gfx] " Tvrtko Ursulin
2021-05-14 5:58 ` Alex Deucher
2021-05-14 5:58 ` [Intel-gfx] " Alex Deucher
2021-05-14 7:22 ` Nieto, David M
2021-05-14 7:22 ` [Intel-gfx] " Nieto, David M
2021-05-14 8:04 ` Christian König
2021-05-14 8:04 ` [Intel-gfx] " Christian König
2021-05-14 13:42 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2021-05-14 13:42 ` [Intel-gfx] " Tvrtko Ursulin
2021-05-14 13:53 ` Christian König
2021-05-14 13:53 ` [Intel-gfx] " Christian König
2021-05-14 14:47 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2021-05-14 14:47 ` [Intel-gfx] " Tvrtko Ursulin
2021-05-14 14:56 ` Christian König
2021-05-14 14:56 ` [Intel-gfx] " Christian König
2021-05-14 15:03 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2021-05-14 15:03 ` [Intel-gfx] " Tvrtko Ursulin
2021-05-14 15:10 ` Christian König
2021-05-14 15:10 ` [Intel-gfx] " Christian König
2021-05-17 14:30 ` Daniel Vetter
2021-05-17 14:30 ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2021-05-17 14:39 ` Nieto, David M
2021-05-17 14:39 ` [Intel-gfx] " Nieto, David M
2021-05-17 16:00 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2021-05-17 16:00 ` [Intel-gfx] " Tvrtko Ursulin
2021-05-17 18:02 ` Nieto, David M
2021-05-17 18:02 ` [Intel-gfx] " Nieto, David M
2021-05-17 18:16 ` [Nouveau] " Nieto, David M
2021-05-17 18:16 ` [Intel-gfx] " Nieto, David M
2021-05-17 18:16 ` Nieto, David M
2021-05-17 19:03 ` [Nouveau] " Simon Ser
2021-05-17 19:03 ` [Intel-gfx] " Simon Ser
2021-05-17 19:03 ` Simon Ser
2021-05-18 9:08 ` [Nouveau] " Tvrtko Ursulin
2021-05-18 9:08 ` [Intel-gfx] " Tvrtko Ursulin
2021-05-18 9:08 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2021-05-18 9:16 ` [Nouveau] " Daniel Stone
2021-05-18 9:16 ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Stone
2021-05-18 9:16 ` Daniel Stone
2021-05-18 9:40 ` Tvrtko Ursulin [this message]
2021-05-18 9:40 ` [Intel-gfx] " Tvrtko Ursulin
2021-05-18 9:40 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2021-05-19 16:16 ` [Nouveau] " Tvrtko Ursulin
2021-05-19 16:16 ` [Intel-gfx] " Tvrtko Ursulin
2021-05-19 16:16 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2021-05-19 18:23 ` [Nouveau] [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2021-05-19 18:23 ` Daniel Vetter
2021-05-19 18:23 ` Daniel Vetter
2021-05-19 23:17 ` [Nouveau] " Nieto, David M
2021-05-19 23:17 ` Nieto, David M
2021-05-19 23:17 ` Nieto, David M
2021-05-20 14:11 ` [Nouveau] " Daniel Vetter
2021-05-20 14:11 ` Daniel Vetter
2021-05-20 14:11 ` Daniel Vetter
2021-05-20 14:12 ` [Nouveau] " Christian König
2021-05-20 14:12 ` Christian König
2021-05-20 14:12 ` Christian König
2021-05-20 14:17 ` [Nouveau] " arabek
2021-05-20 14:17 ` [Intel-gfx] [Nouveau] " arabek
2021-05-20 14:17 ` [Nouveau] [Intel-gfx] " arabek
2021-05-20 8:35 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2021-05-20 8:35 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2021-05-20 8:35 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2021-05-24 10:48 ` [Nouveau] " Tvrtko Ursulin
2021-05-24 10:48 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2021-05-24 10:48 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2021-05-18 9:35 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2021-05-18 9:35 ` [Intel-gfx] " Tvrtko Ursulin
2021-05-18 12:06 ` Christian König
2021-05-18 12:06 ` [Intel-gfx] " Christian König
2021-05-17 19:16 ` Christian König
2021-05-17 19:16 ` [Intel-gfx] " Christian König
2021-06-28 10:16 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2021-06-28 10:16 ` [Intel-gfx] " Tvrtko Ursulin
2021-06-28 14:37 ` Daniel Vetter
2021-06-28 14:37 ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2021-05-15 10:40 ` Maxime Schmitt
2021-05-17 16:13 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2021-05-17 14:20 ` Daniel Vetter
2021-05-17 14:20 ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter
2021-05-13 16:38 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.IGT: failure for " Patchwork
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=71428a10-4b2f-dbbf-7678-7487f9eda6a5@linux.intel.com \
--to=tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com \
--cc=Christian.Koenig@amd.com \
--cc=David.Nieto@amd.com \
--cc=Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=contact@emersion.fr \
--cc=daniel@fooishbar.org \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=nouveau@lists.freedesktop.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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.