On Wed, 24 Aug 2022 22:03:19 -0700, Dixit, Ashutosh wrote:
>
> On Thu, 04 Aug 2022 16:21:25 -0700, Umesh Nerlige Ramappa wrote:
> >
>
> Hi Umesh,
>
> Still reviewing but I have a question below.
Please ignore this mail for now, mostly a result of my misunderstanding the
code. I will ask again if I have any questions. Thanks.
>
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_context.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_context.c
> > index 654a092ed3d6..e2d70a9fdac0 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_context.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_context.c
> > @@ -576,16 +576,24 @@ void intel_context_bind_parent_child(struct
> > intel_context *parent,
> > child->parallel.parent = parent;
> > }
> >
> > -u64 intel_context_get_total_runtime_ns(const struct intel_context *ce)
> > +u64 intel_context_get_total_runtime_ns(struct intel_context *ce)
> > {
> > u64 total, active;
> >
> > + if (ce->ops->update_stats)
> > + ce->ops->update_stats(ce);
> > +
>
> /snip/
>
> > @@ -1396,6 +1399,10 @@ static void guc_timestamp_ping(struct work_struct
> > *wrk)
> > with_intel_runtime_pm(>->i915->runtime_pm, wakeref)
> > __update_guc_busyness_stats(guc);
> >
> > + /* adjust context stats for overflow */
> > + xa_for_each(&guc->context_lookup, index, ce)
> > + __guc_context_update_clks(ce);
> > +
>
> The question is why do we have 2 functions: __guc_context_update_clks()
> (which we call periodically from guc_timestamp_ping()) and
> guc_context_update_stats() (which we call non-periodically from
> intel_context_get_total_runtime_ns()? Why don't we have just one function
> which is called from both places? Or rather why don't we call
> guc_context_update_stats() from both places?
>
> If we don't call guc_context_update_stats() periodically from
> guc_timestamp_ping() how e.g. does ce->stats.runtime.start_gt_clk get reset
> to 0? If it gets reset to 0 in __guc_context_update_clks() then why do we
> need to reset it in guc_context_update_stats()?
>
> Also IMO guc->timestamp.lock should be taken by this single function,
> (otherwise guc_context_update_stats() is modifying
> ce->stats.runtime.start_gt_clk without taking the lock).
>
> Thanks.
> --
> Ashutosh
>
> > +static void __guc_context_update_clks(struct intel_context *ce)
> > +{
> > + struct intel_guc *guc = ce_to_guc(ce);
> > + struct intel_gt *gt = ce->engine->gt;
> > + u32 *pphwsp, last_switch, engine_id;
> > + u64 start_gt_clk, active;
> > + unsigned long flags;
> > + ktime_t unused;
> > +
> > + spin_lock_irqsave(&guc->timestamp.lock, flags);
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * GPU updates ce->lrc_reg_state[CTX_TIMESTAMP] when context is switched
> > + * out, however GuC updates PPHWSP offsets below. Hence KMD (CPU)
> > + * relies on GuC and GPU for busyness calculations. Due to this, A
> > + * potential race was highlighted in an earlier review that can lead to
> > + * double accounting of busyness. While the solution to this is a wip,
> > + * busyness is still usable for platforms running GuC submission.
> > + */
> > + pphwsp = ((void *)ce->lrc_reg_state) - LRC_STATE_OFFSET;
> > + last_switch = READ_ONCE(pphwsp[PPHWSP_GUC_CONTEXT_USAGE_STAMP_LO]);
> > + engine_id = READ_ONCE(pphwsp[PPHWSP_GUC_CONTEXT_USAGE_ENGINE_ID]);
> > +
> > + guc_update_pm_timestamp(guc, &unused);
> > +
> > + if (engine_id != 0xffffffff && last_switch) {
> > + start_gt_clk = READ_ONCE(ce->stats.runtime.start_gt_clk);
> > + __extend_last_switch(guc, &start_gt_clk, last_switch);
> > + active = intel_gt_clock_interval_to_ns(gt,
> > guc->timestamp.gt_stamp - start_gt_clk);
> > + WRITE_ONCE(ce->stats.runtime.start_gt_clk, start_gt_clk);
> > + WRITE_ONCE(ce->stats.active, active);
> > + } else {
> > + lrc_update_runtime(ce);
> > + }
> > +
> > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&guc->timestamp.lock, flags);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void guc_context_update_stats(struct intel_context *ce)
> > +{
> > + if (!intel_context_pin_if_active(ce)) {
> > + WRITE_ONCE(ce->stats.runtime.start_gt_clk, 0);
> > + WRITE_ONCE(ce->stats.active, 0);
> > + return;
> > + }
> > +
> > + __guc_context_update_clks(ce);
> > + intel_context_unpin(ce);
> > +}
