[igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t 06/13] i915/gem_exec_schedule: Measure semaphore power consumption

[Katarzyna Dec]

On Mon, Feb 04, 2019 at 08:36:07AM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
> How much energy does spinning on a semaphore consume relative to plain
> old spinning?
> 
> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>
Is this patch relying on something more then:
bad9d8d0 lib: Add GPU power measurement ? Because I got errors on compilation:

'../tests/i915/gem_exec_schedule.c:1417:16: error: implicit declaration of
function ‘gem_scheduler_has_semaphores’; did you mean
‘gem_scheduler_has_preemption’? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]'
I've seen some patches on intel-gfx, but not in this series.

> ---
>  tests/i915/gem_exec_schedule.c | 72 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 71 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tests/i915/gem_exec_schedule.c b/tests/i915/gem_exec_schedule.c
> index 0462ce84f..184ceb7d6 100644
> --- a/tests/i915/gem_exec_schedule.c
> +++ b/tests/i915/gem_exec_schedule.c
> @@ -29,9 +29,10 @@
>  #include <signal.h>
>  
>  #include "igt.h"
> -#include "igt_vgem.h"
> +#include "igt_gpu_power.h"
>  #include "igt_rand.h"
>  #include "igt_sysfs.h"
> +#include "igt_vgem.h"
>  #include "i915/gem_ring.h"
>  
>  #define LO 0
> @@ -1191,6 +1192,65 @@ static void test_pi_ringfull(int fd, unsigned int engine)
>  	munmap(result, 4096);
>  }
>  
> +static void measure_semaphore_power(int i915)
> +{
> +	struct gpu_power power;
Where power struct is initialized?
> +	unsigned int engine, signaler;
How does signaler differ from engine (in usage)?
> +
> +	igt_require(gpu_power_open(&power) == 0);
> +
> +	for_each_physical_engine(i915, signaler) {
> +		struct gpu_power_sample s_spin[2];
> +		struct gpu_power_sample s_sema[2];
> +		double baseline, total;
> +		int64_t jiffie = 1;
> +		igt_spin_t *spin;
> +
> +		spin = __igt_spin_batch_new(i915,
> +					    .engine = signaler,
> +					    .flags = IGT_SPIN_POLL_RUN);
> +		gem_wait(i915, spin->handle, &jiffie); /* waitboost */
> +		igt_assert(spin->running);
> +		igt_spin_busywait_until_running(spin);
> +
> +		gpu_power_read(&power, &s_spin[0]);
> +		usleep(100*1000);
> +		gpu_power_read(&power, &s_spin[1]);
Shouldn't we be checking results of gpu_power_read in both cases?
> +
> +		/* Add a waiter to each engine */
> +		for_each_physical_engine(i915, engine) {
> +			igt_spin_t *sema;
> +
> +			if (engine == signaler)
> +				continue;
> +
> +			sema = __igt_spin_batch_new(i915,
> +						    .engine = engine,
> +						    .dependency = spin->handle);
> +
> +			igt_spin_batch_free(i915, sema);
> +		}
> +		usleep(10); /* just give the tasklets a chance to run */
> +
> +		gpu_power_read(&power, &s_sema[0]);
> +		usleep(100*1000);
> +		gpu_power_read(&power, &s_sema[1]);
Same as above.

Kasia :)
> +
> +		igt_spin_batch_free(i915, spin);
> +
> +		baseline = gpu_power_W(&power, &s_spin[0], &s_spin[1]);
> +		total = gpu_power_W(&power, &s_sema[0], &s_sema[1]);
> +
> +		igt_info("%s: %.1fmW + %.1fmW (total %1.fmW)\n",
> +			 e__->name,
> +			 1e3 * baseline,
> +			 1e3 * (total - baseline),
> +			 1e3 * total);
> +	}
> +
> +	gpu_power_close(&power);
> +}
> +
>  igt_main
>  {
>  	const struct intel_execution_engine *e;
> @@ -1351,6 +1411,16 @@ igt_main
>  		}
>  	}
>  
> +	igt_subtest_group {
> +		igt_fixture {
> +			igt_require(gem_scheduler_enabled(fd));
> +			igt_require(gem_scheduler_has_semaphores(fd));
> +		}
> +
> +		igt_subtest("semaphore-power")
> +			measure_semaphore_power(fd);
> +	}
> +
>  	igt_fixture {
>  		igt_stop_hang_detector();
>  		close(fd);
> -- 
> 2.20.1
> 
> _______________________________________________
> igt-dev mailing list
> igt-dev at lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/igt-dev