[PATCH 18/24] drm/amdkfd: enable pc sampling start

[Felix Kuehling]

On 2023-11-23 15:01, James Zhu wrote:
>
> On 2023-11-22 17:27, Felix Kuehling wrote:
>>
>> On 2023-11-03 09:11, James Zhu wrote:
>>> Enable pc sampling start.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: James Zhu <James.Zhu at amd.com>
>>> ---
>>>   drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdkfd/kfd_pc_sampling.c | 26 
>>> +++++++++++++++++---
>>>   drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdkfd/kfd_priv.h        |  2 ++
>>>   2 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdkfd/kfd_pc_sampling.c 
>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdkfd/kfd_pc_sampling.c
>>> index 60b29b245db5..33d003ca0093 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdkfd/kfd_pc_sampling.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdkfd/kfd_pc_sampling.c
>>> @@ -83,9 +83,29 @@ static int kfd_pc_sample_query_cap(struct 
>>> kfd_process_device *pdd,
>>>       return 0;
>>>   }
>>>   -static int kfd_pc_sample_start(struct kfd_process_device *pdd)
>>> +static int kfd_pc_sample_start(struct kfd_process_device *pdd,
>>> +                    struct pc_sampling_entry *pcs_entry)
>>>   {
>>> -    return -EINVAL;
>>> +    bool pc_sampling_start = false;
>>> +
>>> +    pcs_entry->enabled = true;
>>> +    mutex_lock(&pdd->dev->pcs_data.mutex);
>>> +    if (!pdd->dev->pcs_data.hosttrap_entry.base.active_count)
>>> +        pc_sampling_start = true;
>>> + pdd->dev->pcs_data.hosttrap_entry.base.active_count++;
>>> +    mutex_unlock(&pdd->dev->pcs_data.mutex);
>>> +
>>> +    while (pc_sampling_start) {
>>> +        if 
>>> (READ_ONCE(pdd->dev->pcs_data.hosttrap_entry.base.stop_enable)) {
>>> +            usleep_range(1000, 2000);
>>
>> I don't understand why you need this synchronization through 
>> stop_enable. Why can't you do both the start and stop while holding 
>> the mutex? It's just setting a flag in the TMA, so it's not a 
>> time-consuming operation, and I don't see any potential for deadlocks.
> [JZ] for stop, not just set TMA. need wait for current pc sampling 
> completely stop and reset some initial setting.

I think that's being obfuscated by how you split up this patch series. 
Maybe if you squash the queue remapping patch into this one, it would be 
more obvious what's really happening when you stop sampling and would 
make it easier to review the synchronization and locking strategy.

Regards,
   Felix


>>
>> Regards,
>>   Felix
>>
>>
>>> +        } else {
>>> + kfd_process_set_trap_pc_sampling_flag(&pdd->qpd,
>>> + pdd->dev->pcs_data.hosttrap_entry.base.pc_sample_info.method, true);
>>> +            break;
>>> +        }
>>> +    }
>>> +
>>> +    return 0;
>>>   }
>>>     static int kfd_pc_sample_stop(struct kfd_process_device *pdd)
>>> @@ -225,7 +245,7 @@ int kfd_pc_sample(struct kfd_process_device *pdd,
>>>           if (pcs_entry->enabled)
>>>               return -EALREADY;
>>>           else
>>> -            return kfd_pc_sample_start(pdd);
>>> +            return kfd_pc_sample_start(pdd, pcs_entry);
>>>         case KFD_IOCTL_PCS_OP_STOP:
>>>           if (!pcs_entry->enabled)
>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdkfd/kfd_priv.h 
>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdkfd/kfd_priv.h
>>> index 6670534f47b8..613910e0d440 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdkfd/kfd_priv.h
>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdkfd/kfd_priv.h
>>> @@ -258,6 +258,8 @@ struct kfd_dev;
>>>     struct kfd_dev_pc_sampling_data {
>>>       uint32_t use_count;         /* Num of PC sampling sessions */
>>> +    uint32_t active_count;      /* Num of active sessions */
>>> +    bool stop_enable;           /* pc sampling stop in process */
>>>       struct idr pc_sampling_idr;
>>>       struct kfd_pc_sample_info pc_sample_info;
>>>   };