[PATCH i-g-t v3] tests/intel/xe_exec_store: Add basic_inst_benchmark

Nirmoy Das nirmoy.das at linux.intel.com
Mon Jul 1 07:59:28 UTC 2024


Hi Kamil,

On 6/28/2024 7:02 PM, Kamil Konieczny wrote:
> Hi Nirmoy,
> On 2024-06-25 at 15:08:16 +0200, Nirmoy Das wrote:
>
> test names should use '-' as separator, you also used other
> name so:
> [PATCH i-g-t v3] tests/intel/xe_exec_store: Add basic_inst_benchmark
>
> should be:
> [PATCH i-g-t v3] tests/intel/xe_exec_store: Add basic-store-benchmark
Looks like I misunderstood your last comment. Will fix it.
>
>> Add basic_inst_benchmark to benchmark this basic operation
> ---------- ^----^
> Same here, use '-' as separator, s/_inst_/-store-/
>
>> for BO sizes to get basic understanding how long it takes
>> bind a BO and run simple GPU command on it.
>>
>> This not a CI test but rather for developer to identify various
>> bottleneck/regression in  BO binding.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Nirmoy Das<nirmoy.das at intel.com>
>> ---
>>   tests/intel/xe_exec_store.c | 112 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
>>   1 file changed, 94 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tests/intel/xe_exec_store.c b/tests/intel/xe_exec_store.c
>> index c872c22d5..aaabdbec3 100644
>> --- a/tests/intel/xe_exec_store.c
>> +++ b/tests/intel/xe_exec_store.c
>> @@ -93,15 +93,10 @@ static void persistance_batch(struct data *data, uint64_t addr)
>>   	data->addr = batch_addr;
>>   
>>   }
>> -/**
>> - * SUBTEST: basic-store
>> - * Description: Basic test to verify store dword.
>> - * SUBTEST: basic-cond-batch
>> - * Description: Basic test to verify cond batch end instruction.
>> - * SUBTEST: basic-all
>> - * Description: Test to verify store dword on all available engines.
>> - */
>> -static void basic_inst(int fd, int inst_type, struct drm_xe_engine_class_instance *eci)
>> +
>> +static void basic_inst_size(int fd, int inst_type,
>> +			    struct drm_xe_engine_class_instance *eci,
>> +			    uint16_t cpu_caching, size_t bo_size)
>>   {
>>   	struct drm_xe_sync sync[2] = {
>>   		{ .type = DRM_XE_SYNC_TYPE_SYNCOBJ, .flags = DRM_XE_SYNC_FLAG_SIGNAL, },
>> @@ -117,7 +112,6 @@ static void basic_inst(int fd, int inst_type, struct drm_xe_engine_class_instanc
>>   	uint32_t exec_queue;
>>   	uint32_t bind_engine;
>>   	uint32_t syncobj;
>> -	size_t bo_size;
>>   	int value = 0x123456;
>>   	uint64_t addr = 0x100000;
>>   	uint32_t bo = 0;
>> @@ -127,12 +121,16 @@ static void basic_inst(int fd, int inst_type, struct drm_xe_engine_class_instanc
>>   	sync[1].handle = syncobj;
>>   
>>   	vm = xe_vm_create(fd, 0, 0);
>> -	bo_size = sizeof(*data);
>> -	bo_size = xe_bb_size(fd, bo_size);
>>   
>> -	bo = xe_bo_create(fd, vm, bo_size,
>> -			  vram_if_possible(fd, eci->gt_id),
>> -			  DRM_XE_GEM_CREATE_FLAG_NEEDS_VISIBLE_VRAM);
>> +	if (cpu_caching)
>> +		bo = xe_bo_create_caching(fd, vm, bo_size,
>> +					  vram_if_possible(fd, eci->gt_id),
>> +					  DRM_XE_GEM_CREATE_FLAG_NEEDS_VISIBLE_VRAM,
>> +					  cpu_caching);
>> +	else
>> +		bo = xe_bo_create(fd, vm, bo_size,
>> +				  vram_if_possible(fd, eci->gt_id),
>> +				  DRM_XE_GEM_CREATE_FLAG_NEEDS_VISIBLE_VRAM);
>>   
>>   	exec_queue = xe_exec_queue_create(fd, vm, eci, 0);
>>   	bind_engine = xe_bind_exec_queue_create(fd, vm, 0);
>> @@ -167,6 +165,66 @@ static void basic_inst(int fd, int inst_type, struct drm_xe_engine_class_instanc
>>   	xe_vm_destroy(fd, vm);
>>   }
>>   
>> +
>> +/**
>> + * SUBTEST: basic-store
>> + * Description: Basic test to verify store dword.
>> + * SUBTEST: basic-cond-batch
>> + * Description: Basic test to verify cond batch end instruction.
>> + * SUBTEST: basic-all
>> + * Description: Test to verify store dword on all available engines.
>> + */
>> +static void basic_inst(int fd, int inst_type,
>> +		       struct drm_xe_engine_class_instance *eci,
>> +		       uint16_t cpu_caching)
>> +{
>> +	size_t bo_size;
>> +
>> +	bo_size = sizeof(struct data);
>> +	bo_size = xe_bb_size(fd, bo_size);
>> +
>> +	basic_inst_size(fd, inst_type, eci, cpu_caching, bo_size);
>> +}
>> +
>> +/**
>> + * SUBTEST: basic-store-benchmark
>> + * Description: Basic test to verify time taken for doing store dword with various size.
>> + */
>> +static void basic_inst_benchmark(int fd, int inst_type,
>> +				 struct drm_xe_engine_class_instance *eci,
>> +				 uint16_t cpu_caching)
>> +{
>> +	struct {
>> +		size_t size;
>> +		const char *name;
>> +	} sizes[] = {
>> +		{SZ_4K, "SZ_4K"},
>> +		{SZ_2M, "SZ_2M"},
>> +		{SZ_64M, "SZ_64M"},
>> +		{SZ_128M, "SZ_128M"},
>> +		{SZ_256M, "SZ_256M"},
>> +		{SZ_1G, "SZ_1G"}
> Could you use more human-friendly strings here? 4KB, 2MB, ...1GB
Sure, will do that.
>
>> +	};
>> +
>> +	struct timeval start, end;
>> +	long seconds, useconds, utime;
>> +
>> +	for (size_t i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(sizes); ++i) {
>> +		size_t bo_size = sizes[i].size;
>> +		const char *size_name = sizes[i].name;
>> +
>> +		gettimeofday(&start, NULL);
>> +		basic_inst_size(fd, inst_type, eci, cpu_caching, bo_size);
>> +		gettimeofday(&end, NULL);
>> +
>> +		seconds = end.tv_sec - start.tv_sec;
>> +		useconds = end.tv_usec - start.tv_usec;
>> +		utime = (seconds * 1000000) + useconds;
> imho there is igt function for such time measure.
Do you mean igt_nsec_elapsed()
>
>> +
>> +		igt_info("Time taken for size %s: %ld us\n", size_name, utime);
>> +	}
>> +}
>> +
>>   #define PAGES 1
>>   #define NCACHELINES (4096/64)
>>   /**
>> @@ -342,12 +400,30 @@ igt_main
>>   
>>   	igt_subtest("basic-store") {
>>   		engine = xe_engine(fd, 1);
>> -		basic_inst(fd, STORE, &engine->instance);
>> +		basic_inst(fd, COND_BATCH, &engine->instance, 0);
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	igt_subtest_with_dynamic("basic-store-benchmark") {
>> +		struct dyn {
>> +			const char *name;
>> +			int cache;
>> +		} tests[] = {
>> +			{"WC", DRM_XE_GEM_CPU_CACHING_WC},
>> +			{"WB", DRM_XE_GEM_CPU_CACHING_WB}
>> +		};
>> +		/* Enable for iGFX only for now */
>> +		igt_require(! xe_has_vram(fd));
> -------------------- ^
> Please use checkpatch.pl for similar hints.
Took me a while find the issue :D. I tend to do that but I guess I have 
to add a alias that will do a check patch before sending.
>
> Could you test with 0 for dGFX?

with fd == 0 ?

I think DRM_XE_GEM_CPU_CACHING_WB doesn't work for dGPU. I have to check 
that on live machine.

>
>> +
>> +		for (int i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(tests); i++) {
>> +			igt_dynamic_f("%s", tests[i].name);
> ----------------------------------------------^
> This is the reason you didn't see dynamic tests running with
> --dyn WC, it should be:
it should be what ? You are keep a secret :)
>
>> +			engine = xe_engine(fd, 1);
>> +			basic_inst_benchmark(fd, STORE, &engine->instance, tests[i].cache);
>> +		}
> 			igt_dynamic_f("%s", tests[i].name) {
>      			engine = xe_engine(fd, 1);
> 	    		basic_inst_benchmark(fd, STORE, &engine->instance, tests[i].cache);
>              }
>
> Btw should you add a skip if engine == NULL?

Yes, that should be safer.


Thanks,

Nirmoy

>
>> +		}
>>   	}
>>   
>>   	igt_subtest("basic-cond-batch") {
>>   		engine = xe_engine(fd, 1);
>> -		basic_inst(fd, COND_BATCH, &engine->instance);
>> +		basic_inst(fd, COND_BATCH, &engine->instance, 0);
>>   	}
>>   
>>   	igt_subtest_with_dynamic("basic-all") {
>> @@ -356,7 +432,7 @@ igt_main
>>   				      xe_engine_class_string(hwe->engine_class),
>>   				      hwe->engine_instance,
>>   				      hwe->gt_id);
>> -			basic_inst(fd, STORE, hwe);
>> +			basic_inst(fd, STORE, hwe, 0);
>>   		}
>>   	}
>>   
>> -- 
>> 2.42.0
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/igt-dev/attachments/20240701/6703e70d/attachment.htm>


More information about the igt-dev mailing list