On 10/21/2022 7:11 PM, Dixit, Ashutosh wrote:
On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 17:24:52 -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 boost_freq and the min softlimit
are 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
v4: Only check min_softlimit against boost_freq. Limit this
optimization for server parts for now.
Sorry I didn't follow. Why are we saying limit this only to server? This:
if (slpc->min_freq_softlimit == slpc->boost_freq)
return;
The condition above should work for client too if it is true? But yes it is
typically true automatically for server but not for client. Is that what
you mean?
yes. For client, min_freq_softlimit would typically be RPn.
Signed-off-by: Vinay Belgaumkar <vinay.belgaum...@intel.com>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_rps.c | 8 +++++++-
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_rps.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_rps.c
index fc23c562d9b2..32e1f5dde5bb 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_rps.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_rps.c
@@ -1016,9 +1016,15 @@ void intel_rps_boost(struct i915_request *rq)
if (rps_uses_slpc(rps)) {
slpc = rps_to_slpc(rps);
+ if (slpc->min_freq_softlimit == slpc->boost_freq)
+ return;
nit but is it possible that 'slpc->min_freq_softlimit > slpc->boost_freq'
(looks possible to me from the code though we might not have intended it)?
Then we can change this to:
if (slpc->min_freq_softlimit >= slpc->boost_freq)
return;
+
/* Return if old value is non zero */
- if (!atomic_fetch_inc(&slpc->num_waiters))
+ if (!atomic_fetch_inc(&slpc->num_waiters)) {
+ GT_TRACE(rps_to_gt(rps), "boost
fence:%llx:%llx\n",
+ rq->fence.context, rq->fence.seqno);
Another possibility would have been to add the trace to slpc_boost_work but
this is matches host turbo so I think it is fine here.
schedule_work(&slpc->boost_work);
+ }
return;
}
Thanks.
--
Ashutosh
