[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v3 6/7] drm/i915/perf: per-gen timebase for checking sample freq

Robert Bragg robert at sixbynine.org
Wed Apr 5 17:59:52 UTC 2017


On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 6:26 PM, Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com
> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 06:17:36PM +0100, Lionel Landwerlin wrote:
> > On 05/04/17 18:06, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 05:23:19PM +0100, Robert Bragg wrote:
> > >> An oa_exponent_to_ns() utility and per-gen timebase constants where
> > >> recently removed when updating the tail pointer race condition WA, and
> > >> this restores those so we can update the _PROP_OA_EXPONENT validation
> > >> done in read_properties_unlocked() to not assume we have a 12.5KHz
> > >> timebase as we did for Haswell.
> > >>
> > >> Signed-off-by: Robert Bragg <robert at sixbynine.org>
> > >> Cc: Lionel Landwerlin <lionel.g.landwerlin at linux.intel.com>
> > >> ---
> > >>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h  |  1 +
> > >>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_perf.c | 21 +++++++++++++++------
> > >>   2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > >>
> > >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> > >> index 3a22b6fd0ee6..48b07d706f06 100644
> > >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> > >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> > >> @@ -2463,6 +2463,7 @@ struct drm_i915_private {
> > >>
> > >>                    bool periodic;
> > >>                    int period_exponent;
> > >> +                  int timestamp_frequency;
> > >>
> > >>                    int metrics_set;
> > >>
> > >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_perf.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_perf.c
> > >> index 98eb6415b63a..87c0d1ce1b9f 100644
> > >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_perf.c
> > >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_perf.c
> > >> @@ -2549,6 +2549,12 @@ i915_perf_open_ioctl_locked(struct
> drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> > >>    return ret;
> > >>   }
> > >>
> > >> +static u64 oa_exponent_to_ns(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, int
> exponent)
> > >> +{
> > >> +       return div_u64(1000000000ULL * (2ULL << exponent),
> > >> +                      dev_priv->perf.oa.timestamp_frequency);
> > >> +}
> > >> +
> > >>   /**
> > >>    * read_properties_unlocked - validate + copy userspace stream open
> properties
> > >>    * @dev_priv: i915 device instance
> > >> @@ -2647,14 +2653,9 @@ static int read_properties_unlocked(struct
> drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> > >>                    /* Theoretically we can program the OA unit to
> sample
> > >>                     * every 160ns but don't allow that by default
> unless
> > >>                     * root.
> > >> -                   *
> > >> -                   * On Haswell the period is derived from the
> exponent
> > >> -                   * as:
> > >> -                   *
> > >> -                   *   period = 80ns * 2^(exponent + 1)
> > >>                     */
> > >>                    BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(oa_period) != 8);
> > >> -                  oa_period = 80ull * (2ull << value);
> > >> +                  oa_period = oa_exponent_to_ns(dev_priv, value);
> > >>
> > >>                    /* This check is primarily to ensure that
> oa_period <=
> > >>                     * UINT32_MAX (before passing to do_div which only
> > >> @@ -2910,6 +2911,8 @@ void i915_perf_init(struct drm_i915_private
> *dev_priv)
> > >>            dev_priv->perf.oa.ops.oa_hw_tail_read =
> > >>                    gen7_oa_hw_tail_read;
> > >>
> > >> +          dev_priv->perf.oa.timestamp_frequency = 12500000;
> > >> +
> > >>            dev_priv->perf.oa.oa_formats = hsw_oa_formats;
> > >>
> > >>            dev_priv->perf.oa.n_builtin_sets =
> > >> @@ -2923,6 +2926,8 @@ void i915_perf_init(struct drm_i915_private
> *dev_priv)
> > >>             */
> > >>
> > >>            if (IS_GEN8(dev_priv)) {
> > >> +                  dev_priv->perf.oa.timestamp_frequency = 12500000;
> > >> +
> > >>                    dev_priv->perf.oa.ctx_oactxctrl_offset = 0x120;
> > >>                    dev_priv->perf.oa.ctx_flexeu0_offset = 0x2ce;
> > >>                    dev_priv->perf.oa.gen8_valid_ctx_bit = (1<<25);
> > >> @@ -2939,6 +2944,8 @@ void i915_perf_init(struct drm_i915_private
> *dev_priv)
> > >>                                    i915_oa_select_metric_set_chv;
> > >>                    }
> > >>            } else if (IS_GEN9(dev_priv)) {
> > >> +                  dev_priv->perf.oa.timestamp_frequency = 12000000;
> > >> +
> > >>                    dev_priv->perf.oa.ctx_oactxctrl_offset = 0x128;
> > >>                    dev_priv->perf.oa.ctx_flexeu0_offset = 0x3de;
> > >>                    dev_priv->perf.oa.gen8_valid_ctx_bit = (1<<16);
> > >> @@ -2959,6 +2966,8 @@ void i915_perf_init(struct drm_i915_private
> *dev_priv)
> > >>                            dev_priv->perf.oa.ops.select_metric_set =
> > >>                                    i915_oa_select_metric_set_sklgt4;
> > >>                    } else if (IS_BROXTON(dev_priv)) {
> > >> +                          dev_priv->perf.oa.timestamp_frequency =
> 19200123;
> > >> +
> > > Why isn't this exactly 19.2MHz?
> >
> > It's based off the timestamp base (from documentation) :
> >
> > BDW: 80ns
> > SKL: 83.333ns
> > BXT: 52.083ns
> >
> > 1000000000 / 19200123 is the closest we can get.
>
> I'm pretty sure the clock is actually 19.2 and the 52.083 is just a
> truncated value. Same for the 83.333 where the code does specify
> 120MHz exactly.
>

Ah, right, that sounds most likely. I'll update.

Thanks,
- Robert


>
> >
> > >
> > >>                            dev_priv->perf.oa.n_builtin_sets =
> > >>                                    i915_oa_n_builtin_metric_sets_bxt;
> > >>                            dev_priv->perf.oa.ops.select_metric_set =
> > >> --
> > >> 2.12.0
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Intel-gfx mailing list
> > >> Intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
> > >> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
> >
>
> --
> Ville Syrjälä
> Intel OTC
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx/attachments/20170405/57d1a50c/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Intel-gfx mailing list