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.belgaum...@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
