[PATCH v3] drm/i915/slpc: Optmize waitboost for SLPC

[PATCH v3] drm/i915/slpc: Optmize waitboost for SLPC

[Vinay Belgaumkar]

Waitboost (when SLPC is enabled) results in a H2G message. This can result
in thousands of messages during a stress test and fill up an already full
CTB. There is no need to request for RP0 if GuC is already requesting the
same.

v2: Add the tracing back, and check requested freq
in the worker thread (Tvrtko)
v3: Check requested freq in dec_waiters as well

Signed-off-by: Vinay Belgaumkar <vinay.belgaumkar@intel.com>
---
 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_rps.c         |  3 +++
 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_slpc.c | 14 +++++++++++---
 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_rps.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_rps.c
index fc23c562d9b2..18b75cf08d1b 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_rps.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_rps.c
@@ -1016,6 +1016,9 @@ void intel_rps_boost(struct i915_request *rq)
 		if (rps_uses_slpc(rps)) {
 			slpc = rps_to_slpc(rps);
 
+			GT_TRACE(rps_to_gt(rps), "boost fence:%llx:%llx\n",
+				 rq->fence.context, rq->fence.seqno);
+
 			/* Return if old value is non zero */
 			if (!atomic_fetch_inc(&slpc->num_waiters))
 				schedule_work(&slpc->boost_work);
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_slpc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_slpc.c
index b7cdeec44bd3..9dbdbab1515a 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_slpc.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_slpc.c
@@ -227,14 +227,19 @@ static int slpc_force_min_freq(struct intel_guc_slpc *slpc, u32 freq)
 static void slpc_boost_work(struct work_struct *work)
 {
 	struct intel_guc_slpc *slpc = container_of(work, typeof(*slpc), boost_work);
+	struct intel_rps *rps = &slpc_to_gt(slpc)->rps;
 	int err;
 
 	/*
 	 * Raise min freq to boost. It's possible that
 	 * this is greater than current max. But it will
 	 * certainly be limited by RP0. An error setting
-	 * the min param is not fatal.
+	 * the min param is not fatal. No need to boost
+	 * if we are already requesting it.
 	 */
+	if (intel_rps_get_requested_frequency(rps) == slpc->boost_freq)
+		return;
+
 	mutex_lock(&slpc->lock);
 	if (atomic_read(&slpc->num_waiters)) {
 		err = slpc_force_min_freq(slpc, slpc->boost_freq);
@@ -728,6 +733,7 @@ int intel_guc_slpc_set_boost_freq(struct intel_guc_slpc *slpc, u32 val)
 
 void intel_guc_slpc_dec_waiters(struct intel_guc_slpc *slpc)
 {
+	struct intel_rps *rps = &slpc_to_gt(slpc)->rps;
 	/*
 	 * Return min back to the softlimit.
 	 * This is called during request retire,
@@ -735,8 +741,10 @@ void intel_guc_slpc_dec_waiters(struct intel_guc_slpc *slpc)
 	 * set_param fails.
 	 */
 	mutex_lock(&slpc->lock);
-	if (atomic_dec_and_test(&slpc->num_waiters))
-		slpc_force_min_freq(slpc, slpc->min_freq_softlimit);
+	if (atomic_dec_and_test(&slpc->num_waiters)) {
+		if (intel_rps_get_requested_frequency(rps) != slpc->min_freq_softlimit)
+			slpc_force_min_freq(slpc, slpc->min_freq_softlimit);
+	}
 	mutex_unlock(&slpc->lock);
 }
 
-- 
2.35.1

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v3] drm/i915/slpc: Optmize waitboost for SLPC

[Dixit, Ashutosh]

On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 17:29:44 -0700, Vinay Belgaumkar wrote:
>

Hi Vinay,

> Waitboost (when SLPC is enabled) results in a H2G message. This can result
> in thousands of messages during a stress test and fill up an already full
> CTB. There is no need to request for RP0 if GuC is already requesting the
> same.

But how are we sure that the freq will remain at RP0 in the future (when
the waiting request or any requests which are ahead execute)?

In the current waitboost implementation, set_param is sent to GuC ahead of
the waiting request to ensure that the freq would be max when this waiting
request executed on the GPU and the freq is kept at max till this request
retires (considering just one waiting request). How can we ensure this if
we don't send the waitboost set_param to GuC?

I had assumed we'll do this optimization for server parts where min is
already RP0 in which case we can completely disable waitboost. But this
patch is something else.

Thanks.
--
Ashutosh


>
> v2: Add the tracing back, and check requested freq
> in the worker thread (Tvrtko)
> v3: Check requested freq in dec_waiters as well
>
> Signed-off-by: Vinay Belgaumkar <vinay.belgaumkar@intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_rps.c         |  3 +++
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_slpc.c | 14 +++++++++++---
>  2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_rps.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_rps.c
> index fc23c562d9b2..18b75cf08d1b 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_rps.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_rps.c
> @@ -1016,6 +1016,9 @@ void intel_rps_boost(struct i915_request *rq)
>		if (rps_uses_slpc(rps)) {
>			slpc = rps_to_slpc(rps);
>
> +			GT_TRACE(rps_to_gt(rps), "boost fence:%llx:%llx\n",
> +				 rq->fence.context, rq->fence.seqno);
> +
>			/* Return if old value is non zero */
>			if (!atomic_fetch_inc(&slpc->num_waiters))
>				schedule_work(&slpc->boost_work);
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_slpc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_slpc.c
> index b7cdeec44bd3..9dbdbab1515a 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_slpc.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_slpc.c
> @@ -227,14 +227,19 @@ static int slpc_force_min_freq(struct intel_guc_slpc *slpc, u32 freq)
>  static void slpc_boost_work(struct work_struct *work)
>  {
>	struct intel_guc_slpc *slpc = container_of(work, typeof(*slpc), boost_work);
> +	struct intel_rps *rps = &slpc_to_gt(slpc)->rps;
>	int err;
>
>	/*
>	 * Raise min freq to boost. It's possible that
>	 * this is greater than current max. But it will
>	 * certainly be limited by RP0. An error setting
> -	 * the min param is not fatal.
> +	 * the min param is not fatal. No need to boost
> +	 * if we are already requesting it.
>	 */
> +	if (intel_rps_get_requested_frequency(rps) == slpc->boost_freq)
> +		return;
> +
>	mutex_lock(&slpc->lock);
>	if (atomic_read(&slpc->num_waiters)) {
>		err = slpc_force_min_freq(slpc, slpc->boost_freq);
> @@ -728,6 +733,7 @@ int intel_guc_slpc_set_boost_freq(struct intel_guc_slpc *slpc, u32 val)
>
>  void intel_guc_slpc_dec_waiters(struct intel_guc_slpc *slpc)
>  {
> +	struct intel_rps *rps = &slpc_to_gt(slpc)->rps;
>	/*
>	 * Return min back to the softlimit.
>	 * This is called during request retire,
> @@ -735,8 +741,10 @@ void intel_guc_slpc_dec_waiters(struct intel_guc_slpc *slpc)
>	 * set_param fails.
>	 */
>	mutex_lock(&slpc->lock);
> -	if (atomic_dec_and_test(&slpc->num_waiters))
> -		slpc_force_min_freq(slpc, slpc->min_freq_softlimit);
> +	if (atomic_dec_and_test(&slpc->num_waiters)) {
> +		if (intel_rps_get_requested_frequency(rps) != slpc->min_freq_softlimit)
> +			slpc_force_min_freq(slpc, slpc->min_freq_softlimit);
> +	}
>	mutex_unlock(&slpc->lock);
>  }
>
> --
> 2.35.1
>

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v3] drm/i915/slpc: Optmize waitboost for SLPC

[Belgaumkar, Vinay]

On 10/20/2022 11:33 AM, Dixit, Ashutosh wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 17:29:44 -0700, Vinay Belgaumkar wrote:
> Hi Vinay,
>
>> Waitboost (when SLPC is enabled) results in a H2G message. This can result
>> in thousands of messages during a stress test and fill up an already full
>> CTB. There is no need to request for RP0 if GuC is already requesting the
>> same.
> But how are we sure that the freq will remain at RP0 in the future (when
> the waiting request or any requests which are ahead execute)?
>
> In the current waitboost implementation, set_param is sent to GuC ahead of
> the waiting request to ensure that the freq would be max when this waiting
> request executed on the GPU and the freq is kept at max till this request
> retires (considering just one waiting request). How can we ensure this if
> we don't send the waitboost set_param to GuC?

There is no way to guarantee the frequency will remain at RP0 till the 
request retires. As a theoretical example, lets say the request boosted 
freq to RP0, but a user changed min freq using sysfs immediately after.

Waitboost is done by a pending request to "hurry" the current requests. 
If GT is already at boost frequency, that purpose is served. Also, host 
algorithm already has this optimization as well.

Thanks,

Vinay.

>
> I had assumed we'll do this optimization for server parts where min is
> already RP0 in which case we can completely disable waitboost. But this
> patch is something else.
>
> Thanks.
> --
> Ashutosh
>
>
>> v2: Add the tracing back, and check requested freq
>> in the worker thread (Tvrtko)
>> v3: Check requested freq in dec_waiters as well
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Vinay Belgaumkar <vinay.belgaumkar@intel.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_rps.c         |  3 +++
>>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_slpc.c | 14 +++++++++++---
>>   2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_rps.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_rps.c
>> index fc23c562d9b2..18b75cf08d1b 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_rps.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_rps.c
>> @@ -1016,6 +1016,9 @@ void intel_rps_boost(struct i915_request *rq)
>> 		if (rps_uses_slpc(rps)) {
>> 			slpc = rps_to_slpc(rps);
>>
>> +			GT_TRACE(rps_to_gt(rps), "boost fence:%llx:%llx\n",
>> +				 rq->fence.context, rq->fence.seqno);
>> +
>> 			/* Return if old value is non zero */
>> 			if (!atomic_fetch_inc(&slpc->num_waiters))
>> 				schedule_work(&slpc->boost_work);
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_slpc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_slpc.c
>> index b7cdeec44bd3..9dbdbab1515a 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_slpc.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_slpc.c
>> @@ -227,14 +227,19 @@ static int slpc_force_min_freq(struct intel_guc_slpc *slpc, u32 freq)
>>   static void slpc_boost_work(struct work_struct *work)
>>   {
>> 	struct intel_guc_slpc *slpc = container_of(work, typeof(*slpc), boost_work);
>> +	struct intel_rps *rps = &slpc_to_gt(slpc)->rps;
>> 	int err;
>>
>> 	/*
>> 	 * Raise min freq to boost. It's possible that
>> 	 * this is greater than current max. But it will
>> 	 * certainly be limited by RP0. An error setting
>> -	 * the min param is not fatal.
>> +	 * the min param is not fatal. No need to boost
>> +	 * if we are already requesting it.
>> 	 */
>> +	if (intel_rps_get_requested_frequency(rps) == slpc->boost_freq)
>> +		return;
>> +
>> 	mutex_lock(&slpc->lock);
>> 	if (atomic_read(&slpc->num_waiters)) {
>> 		err = slpc_force_min_freq(slpc, slpc->boost_freq);
>> @@ -728,6 +733,7 @@ int intel_guc_slpc_set_boost_freq(struct intel_guc_slpc *slpc, u32 val)
>>
>>   void intel_guc_slpc_dec_waiters(struct intel_guc_slpc *slpc)
>>   {
>> +	struct intel_rps *rps = &slpc_to_gt(slpc)->rps;
>> 	/*
>> 	 * Return min back to the softlimit.
>> 	 * This is called during request retire,
>> @@ -735,8 +741,10 @@ void intel_guc_slpc_dec_waiters(struct intel_guc_slpc *slpc)
>> 	 * set_param fails.
>> 	 */
>> 	mutex_lock(&slpc->lock);
>> -	if (atomic_dec_and_test(&slpc->num_waiters))
>> -		slpc_force_min_freq(slpc, slpc->min_freq_softlimit);
>> +	if (atomic_dec_and_test(&slpc->num_waiters)) {
>> +		if (intel_rps_get_requested_frequency(rps) != slpc->min_freq_softlimit)
>> +			slpc_force_min_freq(slpc, slpc->min_freq_softlimit);
>> +	}
>> 	mutex_unlock(&slpc->lock);
>>   }
>>
>> --
>> 2.35.1
>>

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v3] drm/i915/slpc: Optmize waitboost for SLPC

[Dixit, Ashutosh]

On Thu, 20 Oct 2022 13:16:00 -0700, Belgaumkar, Vinay wrote:
>
> On 10/20/2022 11:33 AM, Dixit, Ashutosh wrote:
> > On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 17:29:44 -0700, Vinay Belgaumkar wrote:
> > Hi Vinay,
> >
> >> Waitboost (when SLPC is enabled) results in a H2G message. This can result
> >> in thousands of messages during a stress test and fill up an already full
> >> CTB. There is no need to request for RP0 if GuC is already requesting the
> >> same.
> > But how are we sure that the freq will remain at RP0 in the future (when
> > the waiting request or any requests which are ahead execute)?
> >
> > In the current waitboost implementation, set_param is sent to GuC ahead of
> > the waiting request to ensure that the freq would be max when this waiting
> > request executed on the GPU and the freq is kept at max till this request
> > retires (considering just one waiting request). How can we ensure this if
> > we don't send the waitboost set_param to GuC?
>
> There is no way to guarantee the frequency will remain at RP0 till the
> request retires. As a theoretical example, lets say the request boosted
> freq to RP0, but a user changed min freq using sysfs immediately after.

That would be a bug. If waitboost is in progress and in the middle user
changed min freq, I would expect the freq to revert to the new min only
after the waitboost phase was over.

In any case, I am not referring to this case. Since FW controls the freq
there is nothing preventing FW to change the freq unless we raise min to
max which is what waitboost does.

> Waitboost is done by a pending request to "hurry" the current requests. If
> GT is already at boost frequency, that purpose is served.

FW can bring the freq down later before the waiting request is scheduled.

> Also, host algorithm already has this optimization as well.

Host turbo is different from SLPC. Host turbo controls the freq algorithm
so it knows freq will not come down till it itself brings the freq
down. Unlike SLPC where FW is controling the freq. Therefore host turbo
doesn't ever need to do a MMIO read but only needs to refer to its own
state (rps->cur_freq etc.).

> >
> > I had assumed we'll do this optimization for server parts where min is
> > already RP0 in which case we can completely disable waitboost. But this
> > patch is something else.

Thanks.
--
Ashutosh

> >> v2: Add the tracing back, and check requested freq
> >> in the worker thread (Tvrtko)
> >> v3: Check requested freq in dec_waiters as well
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Vinay Belgaumkar <vinay.belgaumkar@intel.com>
> >> ---
> >>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_rps.c         |  3 +++
> >>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_slpc.c | 14 +++++++++++---
> >>   2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_rps.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_rps.c
> >> index fc23c562d9b2..18b75cf08d1b 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_rps.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_rps.c
> >> @@ -1016,6 +1016,9 @@ void intel_rps_boost(struct i915_request *rq)
> >>		if (rps_uses_slpc(rps)) {
> >>			slpc = rps_to_slpc(rps);
> >>
> >> +			GT_TRACE(rps_to_gt(rps), "boost fence:%llx:%llx\n",
> >> +				 rq->fence.context, rq->fence.seqno);
> >> +
> >>			/* Return if old value is non zero */
> >>			if (!atomic_fetch_inc(&slpc->num_waiters))
> >>				schedule_work(&slpc->boost_work);
> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_slpc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_slpc.c
> >> index b7cdeec44bd3..9dbdbab1515a 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_slpc.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_slpc.c
> >> @@ -227,14 +227,19 @@ static int slpc_force_min_freq(struct intel_guc_slpc *slpc, u32 freq)
> >>   static void slpc_boost_work(struct work_struct *work)
> >>   {
> >>	struct intel_guc_slpc *slpc = container_of(work, typeof(*slpc), boost_work);
> >> +	struct intel_rps *rps = &slpc_to_gt(slpc)->rps;
> >>	int err;
> >>
> >>	/*
> >>	 * Raise min freq to boost. It's possible that
> >>	 * this is greater than current max. But it will
> >>	 * certainly be limited by RP0. An error setting
> >> -	 * the min param is not fatal.
> >> +	 * the min param is not fatal. No need to boost
> >> +	 * if we are already requesting it.
> >>	 */
> >> +	if (intel_rps_get_requested_frequency(rps) == slpc->boost_freq)
> >> +		return;
> >> +
> >>	mutex_lock(&slpc->lock);
> >>	if (atomic_read(&slpc->num_waiters)) {
> >>		err = slpc_force_min_freq(slpc, slpc->boost_freq);
> >> @@ -728,6 +733,7 @@ int intel_guc_slpc_set_boost_freq(struct intel_guc_slpc *slpc, u32 val)
> >>
> >>   void intel_guc_slpc_dec_waiters(struct intel_guc_slpc *slpc)
> >>   {
> >> +	struct intel_rps *rps = &slpc_to_gt(slpc)->rps;
> >>	/*
> >>	 * Return min back to the softlimit.
> >>	 * This is called during request retire,
> >> @@ -735,8 +741,10 @@ void intel_guc_slpc_dec_waiters(struct intel_guc_slpc *slpc)
> >>	 * set_param fails.
> >>	 */
> >>	mutex_lock(&slpc->lock);
> >> -	if (atomic_dec_and_test(&slpc->num_waiters))
> >> -		slpc_force_min_freq(slpc, slpc->min_freq_softlimit);
> >> +	if (atomic_dec_and_test(&slpc->num_waiters)) {
> >> +		if (intel_rps_get_requested_frequency(rps) != slpc->min_freq_softlimit)
> >> +			slpc_force_min_freq(slpc, slpc->min_freq_softlimit);
> >> +	}
> >>	mutex_unlock(&slpc->lock);
> >>   }
> >>
> >> --
> >> 2.35.1
> >>

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v3] drm/i915/slpc: Optmize waitboost for SLPC

[Belgaumkar, Vinay]

On 10/20/2022 4:36 PM, Dixit, Ashutosh wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Oct 2022 13:16:00 -0700, Belgaumkar, Vinay wrote:
>> On 10/20/2022 11:33 AM, Dixit, Ashutosh wrote:
>>> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 17:29:44 -0700, Vinay Belgaumkar wrote:
>>> Hi Vinay,
>>>
>>>> Waitboost (when SLPC is enabled) results in a H2G message. This can result
>>>> in thousands of messages during a stress test and fill up an already full
>>>> CTB. There is no need to request for RP0 if GuC is already requesting the
>>>> same.
>>> But how are we sure that the freq will remain at RP0 in the future (when
>>> the waiting request or any requests which are ahead execute)?
>>>
>>> In the current waitboost implementation, set_param is sent to GuC ahead of
>>> the waiting request to ensure that the freq would be max when this waiting
>>> request executed on the GPU and the freq is kept at max till this request
>>> retires (considering just one waiting request). How can we ensure this if
>>> we don't send the waitboost set_param to GuC?
>> There is no way to guarantee the frequency will remain at RP0 till the
>> request retires. As a theoretical example, lets say the request boosted
>> freq to RP0, but a user changed min freq using sysfs immediately after.
> That would be a bug. If waitboost is in progress and in the middle user
> changed min freq, I would expect the freq to revert to the new min only
> after the waitboost phase was over.

The problem here is that GuC is unaware of this "boosting" phenomenon. 
Setting the min_freq_softlimit as well to boost when we send a boost 
request might help with this issue.

>
> In any case, I am not referring to this case. Since FW controls the freq
> there is nothing preventing FW to change the freq unless we raise min to
> max which is what waitboost does.
Ok, so maybe the solution here is to check if min_softlimit is already 
at boost freq, as it tracks the min freq changes. That should take care 
of server parts automatically as well.
>
>> Waitboost is done by a pending request to "hurry" the current requests. If
>> GT is already at boost frequency, that purpose is served.
> FW can bring the freq down later before the waiting request is scheduled.
>> Also, host algorithm already has this optimization as well.
> Host turbo is different from SLPC. Host turbo controls the freq algorithm
> so it knows freq will not come down till it itself brings the freq
> down. Unlike SLPC where FW is controling the freq. Therefore host turbo
> doesn't ever need to do a MMIO read but only needs to refer to its own
> state (rps->cur_freq etc.).
True. Host algorithm has a periodic timer where it updates frequency. 
Here, it checks num_waiters and sets client_boost every time that is 
non-zero.
>>> I had assumed we'll do this optimization for server parts where min is
>>> already RP0 in which case we can completely disable waitboost. But this
>>> patch is something else.

Hopefully the softlimit changes above will help with client and server.

Thanks,

Vinay.

> Thanks.
> --
> Ashutosh
>
>>>> v2: Add the tracing back, and check requested freq
>>>> in the worker thread (Tvrtko)
>>>> v3: Check requested freq in dec_waiters as well
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Vinay Belgaumkar <vinay.belgaumkar@intel.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>    drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_rps.c         |  3 +++
>>>>    drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_slpc.c | 14 +++++++++++---
>>>>    2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_rps.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_rps.c
>>>> index fc23c562d9b2..18b75cf08d1b 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_rps.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_rps.c
>>>> @@ -1016,6 +1016,9 @@ void intel_rps_boost(struct i915_request *rq)
>>>> 		if (rps_uses_slpc(rps)) {
>>>> 			slpc = rps_to_slpc(rps);
>>>>
>>>> +			GT_TRACE(rps_to_gt(rps), "boost fence:%llx:%llx\n",
>>>> +				 rq->fence.context, rq->fence.seqno);
>>>> +
>>>> 			/* Return if old value is non zero */
>>>> 			if (!atomic_fetch_inc(&slpc->num_waiters))
>>>> 				schedule_work(&slpc->boost_work);
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_slpc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_slpc.c
>>>> index b7cdeec44bd3..9dbdbab1515a 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_slpc.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_slpc.c
>>>> @@ -227,14 +227,19 @@ static int slpc_force_min_freq(struct intel_guc_slpc *slpc, u32 freq)
>>>>    static void slpc_boost_work(struct work_struct *work)
>>>>    {
>>>> 	struct intel_guc_slpc *slpc = container_of(work, typeof(*slpc), boost_work);
>>>> +	struct intel_rps *rps = &slpc_to_gt(slpc)->rps;
>>>> 	int err;
>>>>
>>>> 	/*
>>>> 	 * Raise min freq to boost. It's possible that
>>>> 	 * this is greater than current max. But it will
>>>> 	 * certainly be limited by RP0. An error setting
>>>> -	 * the min param is not fatal.
>>>> +	 * the min param is not fatal. No need to boost
>>>> +	 * if we are already requesting it.
>>>> 	 */
>>>> +	if (intel_rps_get_requested_frequency(rps) == slpc->boost_freq)
>>>> +		return;
>>>> +
>>>> 	mutex_lock(&slpc->lock);
>>>> 	if (atomic_read(&slpc->num_waiters)) {
>>>> 		err = slpc_force_min_freq(slpc, slpc->boost_freq);
>>>> @@ -728,6 +733,7 @@ int intel_guc_slpc_set_boost_freq(struct intel_guc_slpc *slpc, u32 val)
>>>>
>>>>    void intel_guc_slpc_dec_waiters(struct intel_guc_slpc *slpc)
>>>>    {
>>>> +	struct intel_rps *rps = &slpc_to_gt(slpc)->rps;
>>>> 	/*
>>>> 	 * Return min back to the softlimit.
>>>> 	 * This is called during request retire,
>>>> @@ -735,8 +741,10 @@ void intel_guc_slpc_dec_waiters(struct intel_guc_slpc *slpc)
>>>> 	 * set_param fails.
>>>> 	 */
>>>> 	mutex_lock(&slpc->lock);
>>>> -	if (atomic_dec_and_test(&slpc->num_waiters))
>>>> -		slpc_force_min_freq(slpc, slpc->min_freq_softlimit);
>>>> +	if (atomic_dec_and_test(&slpc->num_waiters)) {
>>>> +		if (intel_rps_get_requested_frequency(rps) != slpc->min_freq_softlimit)
>>>> +			slpc_force_min_freq(slpc, slpc->min_freq_softlimit);
>>>> +	}
>>>> 	mutex_unlock(&slpc->lock);
>>>>    }
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 2.35.1
>>>>

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v3] drm/i915/slpc: Optmize waitboost for SLPC

[Dixit, Ashutosh]

On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 11:24:42 -0700, Belgaumkar, Vinay wrote:
>
>
> On 10/20/2022 4:36 PM, Dixit, Ashutosh wrote:
> > On Thu, 20 Oct 2022 13:16:00 -0700, Belgaumkar, Vinay wrote:
> >> On 10/20/2022 11:33 AM, Dixit, Ashutosh wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 17:29:44 -0700, Vinay Belgaumkar wrote:
> >>> Hi Vinay,
> >>>
> >>>> Waitboost (when SLPC is enabled) results in a H2G message. This can result
> >>>> in thousands of messages during a stress test and fill up an already full
> >>>> CTB. There is no need to request for RP0 if GuC is already requesting the
> >>>> same.
> >>> But how are we sure that the freq will remain at RP0 in the future (when
> >>> the waiting request or any requests which are ahead execute)?
> >>>
> >>> In the current waitboost implementation, set_param is sent to GuC ahead of
> >>> the waiting request to ensure that the freq would be max when this waiting
> >>> request executed on the GPU and the freq is kept at max till this request
> >>> retires (considering just one waiting request). How can we ensure this if
> >>> we don't send the waitboost set_param to GuC?
> >> There is no way to guarantee the frequency will remain at RP0 till the
> >> request retires. As a theoretical example, lets say the request boosted
> >> freq to RP0, but a user changed min freq using sysfs immediately after.
> > That would be a bug. If waitboost is in progress and in the middle user
> > changed min freq, I would expect the freq to revert to the new min only
> > after the waitboost phase was over.
>
> The problem here is that GuC is unaware of this "boosting"
> phenomenon. Setting the min_freq_softlimit as well to boost when we send a
> boost request might help with this issue.
>
> >
> > In any case, I am not referring to this case. Since FW controls the freq
> > there is nothing preventing FW to change the freq unless we raise min to
> > max which is what waitboost does.
> Ok, so maybe the solution here is to check if min_softlimit is already at
> boost freq, as it tracks the min freq changes. That should take care of
> server parts automatically as well.

Correct, yes that would be the right way to do it.

Thanks.
--
Ashutosh

> >> Waitboost is done by a pending request to "hurry" the current requests. If
> >> GT is already at boost frequency, that purpose is served.
> > FW can bring the freq down later before the waiting request is scheduled.
> >> Also, host algorithm already has this optimization as well.
> > Host turbo is different from SLPC. Host turbo controls the freq algorithm
> > so it knows freq will not come down till it itself brings the freq
> > down. Unlike SLPC where FW is controling the freq. Therefore host turbo
> > doesn't ever need to do a MMIO read but only needs to refer to its own
> > state (rps->cur_freq etc.).
> True. Host algorithm has a periodic timer where it updates frequency. Here,
> it checks num_waiters and sets client_boost every time that is non-zero.
> >>> I had assumed we'll do this optimization for server parts where min is
> >>> already RP0 in which case we can completely disable waitboost. But this
> >>> patch is something else.
>
> Hopefully the softlimit changes above will help with client and server.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Vinay.
>
> > Thanks.
> > --
> > Ashutosh
> >
> >>>> v2: Add the tracing back, and check requested freq
> >>>> in the worker thread (Tvrtko)
> >>>> v3: Check requested freq in dec_waiters as well
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Vinay Belgaumkar <vinay.belgaumkar@intel.com>
> >>>> ---
> >>>>    drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_rps.c         |  3 +++
> >>>>    drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_slpc.c | 14 +++++++++++---
> >>>>    2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_rps.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_rps.c
> >>>> index fc23c562d9b2..18b75cf08d1b 100644
> >>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_rps.c
> >>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_rps.c
> >>>> @@ -1016,6 +1016,9 @@ void intel_rps_boost(struct i915_request *rq)
> >>>>		if (rps_uses_slpc(rps)) {
> >>>>			slpc = rps_to_slpc(rps);
> >>>>
> >>>> +			GT_TRACE(rps_to_gt(rps), "boost fence:%llx:%llx\n",
> >>>> +				 rq->fence.context, rq->fence.seqno);
> >>>> +
> >>>>			/* Return if old value is non zero */
> >>>>			if (!atomic_fetch_inc(&slpc->num_waiters))
> >>>>				schedule_work(&slpc->boost_work);
> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_slpc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_slpc.c
> >>>> index b7cdeec44bd3..9dbdbab1515a 100644
> >>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_slpc.c
> >>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_slpc.c
> >>>> @@ -227,14 +227,19 @@ static int slpc_force_min_freq(struct intel_guc_slpc *slpc, u32 freq)
> >>>>    static void slpc_boost_work(struct work_struct *work)
> >>>>    {
> >>>>	struct intel_guc_slpc *slpc = container_of(work, typeof(*slpc), boost_work);
> >>>> +	struct intel_rps *rps = &slpc_to_gt(slpc)->rps;
> >>>>	int err;
> >>>>
> >>>>	/*
> >>>>	 * Raise min freq to boost. It's possible that
> >>>>	 * this is greater than current max. But it will
> >>>>	 * certainly be limited by RP0. An error setting
> >>>> -	 * the min param is not fatal.
> >>>> +	 * the min param is not fatal. No need to boost
> >>>> +	 * if we are already requesting it.
> >>>>	 */
> >>>> +	if (intel_rps_get_requested_frequency(rps) == slpc->boost_freq)
> >>>> +		return;
> >>>> +
> >>>>	mutex_lock(&slpc->lock);
> >>>>	if (atomic_read(&slpc->num_waiters)) {
> >>>>		err = slpc_force_min_freq(slpc, slpc->boost_freq);
> >>>> @@ -728,6 +733,7 @@ int intel_guc_slpc_set_boost_freq(struct intel_guc_slpc *slpc, u32 val)
> >>>>
> >>>>    void intel_guc_slpc_dec_waiters(struct intel_guc_slpc *slpc)
> >>>>    {
> >>>> +	struct intel_rps *rps = &slpc_to_gt(slpc)->rps;
> >>>>	/*
> >>>>	 * Return min back to the softlimit.
> >>>>	 * This is called during request retire,
> >>>> @@ -735,8 +741,10 @@ void intel_guc_slpc_dec_waiters(struct intel_guc_slpc *slpc)
> >>>>	 * set_param fails.
> >>>>	 */
> >>>>	mutex_lock(&slpc->lock);
> >>>> -	if (atomic_dec_and_test(&slpc->num_waiters))
> >>>> -		slpc_force_min_freq(slpc, slpc->min_freq_softlimit);
> >>>> +	if (atomic_dec_and_test(&slpc->num_waiters)) {
> >>>> +		if (intel_rps_get_requested_frequency(rps) != slpc->min_freq_softlimit)
> >>>> +			slpc_force_min_freq(slpc, slpc->min_freq_softlimit);
> >>>> +	}
> >>>>	mutex_unlock(&slpc->lock);
> >>>>    }
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> 2.35.1
> >>>>

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v3] drm/i915/slpc: Optmize waitboost for SLPC

[Belgaumkar, Vinay]

On 10/21/2022 11:40 AM, Dixit, Ashutosh wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 11:24:42 -0700, Belgaumkar, Vinay wrote:
>>
>> On 10/20/2022 4:36 PM, Dixit, Ashutosh wrote:
>>> On Thu, 20 Oct 2022 13:16:00 -0700, Belgaumkar, Vinay wrote:
>>>> On 10/20/2022 11:33 AM, Dixit, Ashutosh wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 17:29:44 -0700, Vinay Belgaumkar wrote:
>>>>> Hi Vinay,
>>>>>
>>>>>> Waitboost (when SLPC is enabled) results in a H2G message. This can result
>>>>>> in thousands of messages during a stress test and fill up an already full
>>>>>> CTB. There is no need to request for RP0 if GuC is already requesting the
>>>>>> same.
>>>>> But how are we sure that the freq will remain at RP0 in the future (when
>>>>> the waiting request or any requests which are ahead execute)?
>>>>>
>>>>> In the current waitboost implementation, set_param is sent to GuC ahead of
>>>>> the waiting request to ensure that the freq would be max when this waiting
>>>>> request executed on the GPU and the freq is kept at max till this request
>>>>> retires (considering just one waiting request). How can we ensure this if
>>>>> we don't send the waitboost set_param to GuC?
>>>> There is no way to guarantee the frequency will remain at RP0 till the
>>>> request retires. As a theoretical example, lets say the request boosted
>>>> freq to RP0, but a user changed min freq using sysfs immediately after.
>>> That would be a bug. If waitboost is in progress and in the middle user
>>> changed min freq, I would expect the freq to revert to the new min only
>>> after the waitboost phase was over.
>> The problem here is that GuC is unaware of this "boosting"
>> phenomenon. Setting the min_freq_softlimit as well to boost when we send a
>> boost request might help with this issue.
>>
>>> In any case, I am not referring to this case. Since FW controls the freq
>>> there is nothing preventing FW to change the freq unless we raise min to
>>> max which is what waitboost does.
>> Ok, so maybe the solution here is to check if min_softlimit is already at
>> boost freq, as it tracks the min freq changes. That should take care of
>> server parts automatically as well.
> Correct, yes that would be the right way to do it.

Actually, rethinking, it's not going to work for client GPUs. We cannot 
clobber the min_softlimit as the user may have set it. So, I'll just 
make this change to optimize it for server parts for now.

Thanks,

Vinay.

>
> Thanks.
> --
> Ashutosh
>
>>>> Waitboost is done by a pending request to "hurry" the current requests. If
>>>> GT is already at boost frequency, that purpose is served.
>>> FW can bring the freq down later before the waiting request is scheduled.
>>>> Also, host algorithm already has this optimization as well.
>>> Host turbo is different from SLPC. Host turbo controls the freq algorithm
>>> so it knows freq will not come down till it itself brings the freq
>>> down. Unlike SLPC where FW is controling the freq. Therefore host turbo
>>> doesn't ever need to do a MMIO read but only needs to refer to its own
>>> state (rps->cur_freq etc.).
>> True. Host algorithm has a periodic timer where it updates frequency. Here,
>> it checks num_waiters and sets client_boost every time that is non-zero.
>>>>> I had assumed we'll do this optimization for server parts where min is
>>>>> already RP0 in which case we can completely disable waitboost. But this
>>>>> patch is something else.
>> Hopefully the softlimit changes above will help with client and server.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Vinay.
>>
>>> Thanks.
>>> --
>>> Ashutosh
>>>
>>>>>> v2: Add the tracing back, and check requested freq
>>>>>> in the worker thread (Tvrtko)
>>>>>> v3: Check requested freq in dec_waiters as well
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Vinay Belgaumkar <vinay.belgaumkar@intel.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>     drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_rps.c         |  3 +++
>>>>>>     drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_slpc.c | 14 +++++++++++---
>>>>>>     2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_rps.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_rps.c
>>>>>> index fc23c562d9b2..18b75cf08d1b 100644
>>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_rps.c
>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_rps.c
>>>>>> @@ -1016,6 +1016,9 @@ void intel_rps_boost(struct i915_request *rq)
>>>>>> 		if (rps_uses_slpc(rps)) {
>>>>>> 			slpc = rps_to_slpc(rps);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +			GT_TRACE(rps_to_gt(rps), "boost fence:%llx:%llx\n",
>>>>>> +				 rq->fence.context, rq->fence.seqno);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> 			/* Return if old value is non zero */
>>>>>> 			if (!atomic_fetch_inc(&slpc->num_waiters))
>>>>>> 				schedule_work(&slpc->boost_work);
>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_slpc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_slpc.c
>>>>>> index b7cdeec44bd3..9dbdbab1515a 100644
>>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_slpc.c
>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_slpc.c
>>>>>> @@ -227,14 +227,19 @@ static int slpc_force_min_freq(struct intel_guc_slpc *slpc, u32 freq)
>>>>>>     static void slpc_boost_work(struct work_struct *work)
>>>>>>     {
>>>>>> 	struct intel_guc_slpc *slpc = container_of(work, typeof(*slpc), boost_work);
>>>>>> +	struct intel_rps *rps = &slpc_to_gt(slpc)->rps;
>>>>>> 	int err;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 	/*
>>>>>> 	 * Raise min freq to boost. It's possible that
>>>>>> 	 * this is greater than current max. But it will
>>>>>> 	 * certainly be limited by RP0. An error setting
>>>>>> -	 * the min param is not fatal.
>>>>>> +	 * the min param is not fatal. No need to boost
>>>>>> +	 * if we are already requesting it.
>>>>>> 	 */
>>>>>> +	if (intel_rps_get_requested_frequency(rps) == slpc->boost_freq)
>>>>>> +		return;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> 	mutex_lock(&slpc->lock);
>>>>>> 	if (atomic_read(&slpc->num_waiters)) {
>>>>>> 		err = slpc_force_min_freq(slpc, slpc->boost_freq);
>>>>>> @@ -728,6 +733,7 @@ int intel_guc_slpc_set_boost_freq(struct intel_guc_slpc *slpc, u32 val)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     void intel_guc_slpc_dec_waiters(struct intel_guc_slpc *slpc)
>>>>>>     {
>>>>>> +	struct intel_rps *rps = &slpc_to_gt(slpc)->rps;
>>>>>> 	/*
>>>>>> 	 * Return min back to the softlimit.
>>>>>> 	 * This is called during request retire,
>>>>>> @@ -735,8 +741,10 @@ void intel_guc_slpc_dec_waiters(struct intel_guc_slpc *slpc)
>>>>>> 	 * set_param fails.
>>>>>> 	 */
>>>>>> 	mutex_lock(&slpc->lock);
>>>>>> -	if (atomic_dec_and_test(&slpc->num_waiters))
>>>>>> -		slpc_force_min_freq(slpc, slpc->min_freq_softlimit);
>>>>>> +	if (atomic_dec_and_test(&slpc->num_waiters)) {
>>>>>> +		if (intel_rps_get_requested_frequency(rps) != slpc->min_freq_softlimit)
>>>>>> +			slpc_force_min_freq(slpc, slpc->min_freq_softlimit);
>>>>>> +	}
>>>>>> 	mutex_unlock(&slpc->lock);
>>>>>>     }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> 2.35.1
>>>>>>