On 04/10/2022 14:00, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 04/10/2022 10:29, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 03/10/2022 20:24, Ashutosh Dixit wrote:
PMU and sysfs use different wakeref's to "interpret" zero freq. Sysfs
uses
runtime PM wakeref (see intel_rps_read_punit_req and
intel_rps_read_actual_frequency). PMU uses the GT parked/unparked
wakeref. In general the GT wakeref is held for less time that the
runtime
PM wakeref which causes PMU to report a lower average freq than the
average
freq obtained from sampling sysfs.
To resolve this, use the same freq functions (and wakeref's) in PMU as
those used in sysfs.
Bug: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/-/issues/7025
Reported-by: Ashwin Kumar Kulkarni <ashwin.kumar.kulka...@intel.com>
Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursu...@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Ashutosh Dixit <ashutosh.di...@intel.com>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pmu.c | 27 ++-------------------------
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pmu.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pmu.c
index 958b37123bf1..eda03f264792 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pmu.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pmu.c
@@ -371,37 +371,16 @@ static void
frequency_sample(struct intel_gt *gt, unsigned int period_ns)
{
struct drm_i915_private *i915 = gt->i915;
- struct intel_uncore *uncore = gt->uncore;
struct i915_pmu *pmu = &i915->pmu;
struct intel_rps *rps = >->rps;
if (!frequency_sampling_enabled(pmu))
return;
- /* Report 0/0 (actual/requested) frequency while parked. */
- if (!intel_gt_pm_get_if_awake(gt))
- return;
-
if (pmu->enable & config_mask(I915_PMU_ACTUAL_FREQUENCY)) {
- u32 val;
-
- /*
- * We take a quick peek here without using forcewake
- * so that we don't perturb the system under observation
- * (forcewake => !rc6 => increased power use). We expect
- * that if the read fails because it is outside of the
- * mmio power well, then it will return 0 -- in which
- * case we assume the system is running at the intended
- * frequency. Fortunately, the read should rarely fail!
- */
- val = intel_uncore_read_fw(uncore, GEN6_RPSTAT1);
- if (val)
- val = intel_rps_get_cagf(rps, val);
- else
- val = rps->cur_freq;
-
add_sample_mult(&pmu->sample[__I915_SAMPLE_FREQ_ACT],
- intel_gpu_freq(rps, val), period_ns / 1000);
+ intel_rps_read_actual_frequency(rps),
+ period_ns / 1000);
}
if (pmu->enable & config_mask(I915_PMU_REQUESTED_FREQUENCY)) {
What is software tracking of requested frequency showing when GT is
parked or runtime suspended? With this change sampling would be
outside any such checks so we need to be sure reported value makes sense.
Although more important open is around what is actually correct.
For instance how does the patch affect RC6 and power? I don't know how
power management of different blocks is wired up, so personally I
would only be able to look at it empirically. In other words what I am
asking is this - if we changed from skipping obtaining forcewake even
when unparked, to obtaining forcewake if not runtime suspended - what
hardware blocks does that power up and how it affects RC6 and power?
Can it affect actual frequency or not? (Will "something" power up the
clocks just because we will be getting forcewake?)
Or maybe question simplified - does 200Hz polling on existing sysfs
actual frequency field disturbs the system under some circumstances?
(Increases power and decreases RC6.) If it does then that would be a
problem. We want a solution which shows the real data, but where the
act of monitoring itself does not change it too much. If it doesn't
then it's okay.
Could you somehow investigate on these topics? Maybe log RAPL GPU
power while polling on sysfs, versus getting the actual frequency from
the existing PMU implementation and see if that shows anything? Or
actually simpler - RAPL GPU power for current PMU intel_gpu_top versus
this patch? On idle(-ish) desktop workloads perhaps? Power and
frequency graphed for both.
Another thought - considering that bspec says for 0xa01c "This register
reflects real-time values and thus does not have a pre-determined
default value out of reset" - could it be that it also does not reflect
a real value when GPU is not executing anything (so zero), just happens
to be not runtime suspended? That would mean sysfs reads could maybe
show last known value? Just a thought to check.
I've also tried on my Alderlake desktop:
1)
while true; do cat gt_act_freq_mhz >/dev/null; sleep 0.005; done
This costs ~120mW of GPU power and ~20% decrease in RC6.
2)
intel_gpu_top -l -s 5 >/dev/null
This "-s 5" was pointless though. :)
Regards,
Tvrtko
This costs no power or RC6.
I have also never observed sysfs to show below min freq. This was with
no desktop so it's possible this register indeed does not reflect the
real situation when things are idle.
So I think it is possible sysfs value is the misleading one.
Regards,
Tvrtko
