[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v3] drm/i915: Use exponential backoff for wait_for()

Michał Winiarski michal.winiarski at intel.com
Fri Nov 24 12:37:56 UTC 2017


On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 08:59:51PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Instead of sleeping for a fixed 1ms (roughly, depending on timer slack),
> start with a small sleep and exponentially increase the sleep on each
> cycle.
> 
> A good example of a beneficiary is the guc mmio communication channel.
> Typically we expect (and so spin) for 10us for a quick response, but this
> doesn't cover everything and so sometimes we fallback to the millisecond+
> sleep. This incurs a significant delay in time-critical operations like
> preemption (igt/gem_exec_latency), which can be improved significantly by
> using a small sleep after the spin fails.
> 
> We've made this suggestion many times, but had little experimental data
> to support adding the complexity.
> 
> v2: Bump the minimum usleep to 10us on advice of
> Documentation/timers/timers-howto.txt (Tvrko)
> v3: Specify min, max range for usleep intervals -- some code may
> crucially depend upon and so want to specify the sleep pattern.

Since we see the effects for GuC preeption, let's gather some evidence.

(SKL)
intel_guc_send_mmio latency: 100 rounds of gem_exec_latency --r '*-preemption'

drm-tip:
     usecs               : count     distribution
         0 -> 1          : 0        |                                        |
         2 -> 3          : 0        |                                        |
         4 -> 7          : 0        |                                        |
         8 -> 15         : 44       |                                        |
        16 -> 31         : 1088     |                                        |
        32 -> 63         : 832      |                                        |
        64 -> 127        : 0        |                                        |
       128 -> 255        : 0        |                                        |
       256 -> 511        : 12       |                                        |
       512 -> 1023       : 0        |                                        |
      1024 -> 2047       : 29899    |*********                               |
      2048 -> 4095       : 131033   |****************************************|

exponential backoff:
     usecs               : count     distribution
         0 -> 1          : 0        |                                        |
         2 -> 3          : 0        |                                        |
         4 -> 7          : 0        |                                        |
         8 -> 15         : 58       |                                        |
        16 -> 31         : 2009     |                                        |
        32 -> 63         : 153615   |****************************************|
        64 -> 127        : 4360     |*                                       |
       128 -> 255        : 14       |                                        |
       256 -> 511        : 4236     |*                                       |
       512 -> 1023       : 4        |                                        |

s/10us/100us in __intel_wait_for_register_fw fast_timeout (without exponential
backoff):
     usecs               : count     distribution
         0 -> 1          : 0        |                                        |
         2 -> 3          : 0        |                                        |
         4 -> 7          : 0        |                                        |
         8 -> 15         : 946      |                                        |
        16 -> 31         : 159803   |****************************************|
        32 -> 63         : 3440     |                                        |
        64 -> 127        : 33       |                                        |
       128 -> 255        : 1        |                                        |
       256 -> 511        : 74       |                                        |

same as the previous one, except with lower GPU clock, let's say max == hw_min:
     usecs               : count     distribution
         0 -> 1          : 0        |                                        |
         2 -> 3          : 0        |                                        |
         4 -> 7          : 0        |                                        |
         8 -> 15         : 0        |                                        |
        16 -> 31         : 26       |                                        |
        32 -> 63         : 160411   |****************************************|
        64 -> 127        : 3402     |                                        |
       128 -> 255        : 12       |                                        |
       256 -> 511        : 50       |                                        |
       512 -> 1023       : 3        |                                        |
      1024 -> 2047       : 1        |                                        |
      2048 -> 4095       : 2        |                                        |

We're waaay better with exponential backoff compared with current drm-tip, and
we're almost as good as with spinning for a longer period. Unfortunately with
GuC the delay depends on platform (and/or GPU clock?), so we're still seeing the
long tail without exponential backoff if we manage to miss the fast timeout.

> References: 1758b90e38f5 ("drm/i915: Use a hybrid scheme for fast register waits")
> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>
> Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin at intel.com>
> Cc: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison at intel.com>
> Cc: Michał Winiarski <michal.winiarski at intel.com>
> Cc: Ville Syrjala <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com>

Reviewed-by: Michał Winiarski <michal.winiarski at intel.com>

-Michał

> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h | 11 +++++++----
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c  |  2 +-
>  2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
> index 635a96fcd788..c00441a3d649 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
> @@ -48,8 +48,9 @@
>   * having timed out, since the timeout could be due to preemption or similar and
>   * we've never had a chance to check the condition before the timeout.
>   */
> -#define _wait_for(COND, US, W) ({ \
> +#define _wait_for(COND, US, Wmin, Wmax) ({ \
>  	unsigned long timeout__ = jiffies + usecs_to_jiffies(US) + 1;	\
> +	long wait__ = (Wmin); /* recommended min for usleep is 10 us */	\
>  	int ret__;							\
>  	might_sleep();							\
>  	for (;;) {							\
> @@ -62,12 +63,14 @@
>  			ret__ = -ETIMEDOUT;				\
>  			break;						\
>  		}							\
> -		usleep_range((W), (W) * 2);				\
> +		usleep_range(wait__, wait__ * 2);			\
> +		if (wait__ < (Wmax))					\
> +			wait__ <<= 1;					\
>  	}								\
>  	ret__;								\
>  })
>  
> -#define wait_for(COND, MS)	  	_wait_for((COND), (MS) * 1000, 1000)
> +#define wait_for(COND, MS)	_wait_for((COND), (MS) * 1000, 10, 1000)
>  
>  /* If CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT is disabled, in_atomic() always reports false. */
>  #if defined(CONFIG_DRM_I915_DEBUG) && defined(CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT)
> @@ -116,7 +119,7 @@
>  	int ret__; \
>  	BUILD_BUG_ON(!__builtin_constant_p(US)); \
>  	if ((US) > 10) \
> -		ret__ = _wait_for((COND), (US), 10); \
> +		ret__ = _wait_for((COND), (US), 10, 10); \
>  	else \
>  		ret__ = _wait_for_atomic((COND), (US), 0); \
>  	ret__; \
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
> index e445ec174831..f07f14ae198d 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
> @@ -9294,7 +9294,7 @@ int skl_pcode_request(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, u32 mbox, u32 request,
>  		ret = 0;
>  		goto out;
>  	}
> -	ret = _wait_for(COND, timeout_base_ms * 1000, 10);
> +	ret = _wait_for(COND, timeout_base_ms * 1000, 10, 10);
>  	if (!ret)
>  		goto out;
>  
> -- 
> 2.15.0
> 


More information about the Intel-gfx mailing list