RE: [PATCH 4/4] drm/amdgpu: add eviction fence tracepoints for userq profiling

2026-05-13 Thread Liang, Prike 
AMD General

Regards,
  Prike

> -Original Message-
> From: Pierre-Eric Pelloux-Prayer 
> Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2026 5:18 PM
> To: Liang, Prike ; [email protected]
> Cc: Deucher, Alexander ; Koenig, Christian
> 
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] drm/amdgpu: add eviction fence tracepoints for userq
> profiling
>
>
>
> Le 11/05/2026 à 15:54, Prike Liang a écrit :
> > Add ftrace events for the userq eviction fence lifecycle.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Prike Liang 
> > ---
> >   .../drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_eviction_fence.c|  8 +++-
> >   drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_trace.h | 42 +++
> >   2 files changed, 49 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_eviction_fence.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_eviction_fence.c
> > index 5ae477c49a53..9358f9b35914 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_eviction_fence.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_eviction_fence.c
> > @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@
> >   #include 
> >   #include 
> >   #include "amdgpu.h"
> > +#include "amdgpu_trace.h"
> >
> >   static const char *
> >   amdgpu_eviction_fence_get_driver_name(struct dma_fence *fence) @@
> > -44,6 +45,8 @@ static bool amdgpu_eviction_fence_enable_signaling(struct
> dma_fence *f)
> >   {
> > struct amdgpu_eviction_fence *ev_fence = to_ev_fence(f);
> >
> > +   trace_amdgpu_userq_eviction_fence_enable_signaling(f->context,
> > +  f->seqno);
> > schedule_work(&ev_fence->evf_mgr->suspend_work);
> > return true;
> >   }
> > @@ -84,6 +87,8 @@ amdgpu_eviction_fence_suspend_worker(struct work_struct
> *work)
> >  * next fence.
> >  */
> > dma_fence_signal(ev_fence);
> > +   trace_amdgpu_userq_eviction_fence_signal(ev_fence->context,
> > +ev_fence->seqno);
> > dma_fence_end_signalling(cookie);
> > dma_fence_put(ev_fence);
> >
> > @@ -138,7 +143,8 @@ int amdgpu_evf_mgr_rearm(struct
> amdgpu_eviction_fence_mgr *evf_mgr,
> > /* Remember it for newly added BOs */
> > dma_fence_put(evf_mgr->ev_fence);
> > evf_mgr->ev_fence = &ev_fence->base;
> > -
> > +   trace_amdgpu_userq_eviction_fence_emit(ev_fence->base.context,
> > +  ev_fence->base.seqno);
> > /* And add it to all existing BOs */
> > drm_exec_for_each_locked_object(exec, index, obj) {
> > struct amdgpu_bo *bo = gem_to_amdgpu_bo(obj); diff --git
> > a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_trace.h
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_trace.h
> > index d421a44ef933..5191f4e957d5 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_trace.h
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_trace.h
> > @@ -709,6 +709,48 @@ TRACE_EVENT(amdgpu_userq_fence_signal,
> > TP_printk("context=%llu, seqno=%llu, rptr=%llu",
> >   __entry->context, __entry->seqno, __entry->rptr)
> >   );
> > +TRACE_EVENT(amdgpu_userq_eviction_fence_emit,
> > +   TP_PROTO(u64 context, u64 seqno),
> > +   TP_ARGS(context, seqno),
> > +   TP_STRUCT__entry(
> > +__field(u64, context)
> > +__field(u64, seqno)
> > +),
> > +   TP_fast_assign(
> > +  __entry->context = context;
> > +  __entry->seqno = seqno;
> > +  ),
> > +   TP_printk("context=%llu, seqno=%llu",
> > + __entry->context, __entry->seqno)
>
> I'll leave it to others to decide if these events are useful, but if you keep 
> them please
> use "fence=%llu:%llu" for consistency.

I think this will help understanding and profiling the userq objects 
bookkeeping usage and userq eviction latency.

> Pierre-Eric
>
> > +);
> > +TRACE_EVENT(amdgpu_userq_eviction_fence_enable_signaling,
> > +   TP_PROTO(u64 context, u64 seqno),
> > +   TP_ARGS(context, seqno),
> > +   TP_STRUCT__entry(
> > +__field(u64, context)
> > +__field(u64, seqno)
> > +),
> > +   TP_fast_assign(
> > +  __entry->context = context;
> > +  __entry->seqno = seqno;
> > +  ),
> >

Re: [PATCH 4/4] drm/amdgpu: add eviction fence tracepoints for userq profiling

2026-05-13 Thread Pierre-Eric Pelloux-Prayer 




Le 11/05/2026 à 15:54, Prike Liang a écrit :

Add ftrace events for the userq eviction fence lifecycle.

Signed-off-by: Prike Liang 
---
  .../drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_eviction_fence.c|  8 +++-
  drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_trace.h | 42 +++
  2 files changed, 49 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_eviction_fence.c 
b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_eviction_fence.c
index 5ae477c49a53..9358f9b35914 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_eviction_fence.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_eviction_fence.c
@@ -24,6 +24,7 @@
  #include 
  #include 
  #include "amdgpu.h"
+#include "amdgpu_trace.h"
  
  static const char *

  amdgpu_eviction_fence_get_driver_name(struct dma_fence *fence)
@@ -44,6 +45,8 @@ static bool amdgpu_eviction_fence_enable_signaling(struct 
dma_fence *f)
  {
struct amdgpu_eviction_fence *ev_fence = to_ev_fence(f);
  
+	trace_amdgpu_userq_eviction_fence_enable_signaling(f->context,

+  f->seqno);
schedule_work(&ev_fence->evf_mgr->suspend_work);
return true;
  }
@@ -84,6 +87,8 @@ amdgpu_eviction_fence_suspend_worker(struct work_struct *work)
 * next fence.
 */
dma_fence_signal(ev_fence);
+   trace_amdgpu_userq_eviction_fence_signal(ev_fence->context,
+ev_fence->seqno);
dma_fence_end_signalling(cookie);
dma_fence_put(ev_fence);
  
@@ -138,7 +143,8 @@ int amdgpu_evf_mgr_rearm(struct amdgpu_eviction_fence_mgr *evf_mgr,

/* Remember it for newly added BOs */
dma_fence_put(evf_mgr->ev_fence);
evf_mgr->ev_fence = &ev_fence->base;
-
+   trace_amdgpu_userq_eviction_fence_emit(ev_fence->base.context,
+  ev_fence->base.seqno);
/* And add it to all existing BOs */
drm_exec_for_each_locked_object(exec, index, obj) {
struct amdgpu_bo *bo = gem_to_amdgpu_bo(obj);
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_trace.h 
b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_trace.h
index d421a44ef933..5191f4e957d5 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_trace.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_trace.h
@@ -709,6 +709,48 @@ TRACE_EVENT(amdgpu_userq_fence_signal,
TP_printk("context=%llu, seqno=%llu, rptr=%llu",
  __entry->context, __entry->seqno, __entry->rptr)
  );
+TRACE_EVENT(amdgpu_userq_eviction_fence_emit,
+   TP_PROTO(u64 context, u64 seqno),
+   TP_ARGS(context, seqno),
+   TP_STRUCT__entry(
+__field(u64, context)
+__field(u64, seqno)
+),
+   TP_fast_assign(
+  __entry->context = context;
+  __entry->seqno = seqno;
+  ),
+   TP_printk("context=%llu, seqno=%llu",
+ __entry->context, __entry->seqno)


I'll leave it to others to decide if these events are useful, but if you keep them please use 
"fence=%llu:%llu" for consistency.


Pierre-Eric


+);
+TRACE_EVENT(amdgpu_userq_eviction_fence_enable_signaling,
+   TP_PROTO(u64 context, u64 seqno),
+   TP_ARGS(context, seqno),
+   TP_STRUCT__entry(
+__field(u64, context)
+__field(u64, seqno)
+),
+   TP_fast_assign(
+  __entry->context = context;
+  __entry->seqno = seqno;
+  ),
+   TP_printk("context=%llu, seqno=%llu",
+ __entry->context, __entry->seqno)
+);
+TRACE_EVENT(amdgpu_userq_eviction_fence_signal,
+   TP_PROTO(u64 context, u64 seqno),
+   TP_ARGS(context, seqno),
+   TP_STRUCT__entry(
+__field(u64, context)
+__field(u64, seqno)
+),
+   TP_fast_assign(
+  __entry->context = context;
+  __entry->seqno = seqno;
+  ),
+   TP_printk("context=%llu, seqno=%llu",
+ __entry->context, __entry->seqno)
+);
  #undef AMDGPU_JOB_GET_TIMELINE_NAME
  #endif