[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2 1/1] drm/i915: Save PM interrupt register offsets in device info
Tvrtko Ursulin
tvrtko.ursulin at linux.intel.com
Thu Oct 26 10:06:20 UTC 2017
On 25/10/2017 08:45, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Oct 2017, Tvrtko Ursulin <tursulin at ursulin.net> wrote:
>> On 24/10/17 18:48, Jani Nikula wrote:
>>> On Tue, 24 Oct 2017, Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> Quoting Sagar Arun Kamble (2017-10-24 11:41:13)
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_device_info.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_device_info.c
>>>>> index 875d428..d1a4911 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_device_info.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_device_info.c
>>>>> @@ -462,4 +462,15 @@ void intel_device_info_runtime_init(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>>>>> info->sseu.has_subslice_pg ? "y" : "n");
>>>>> DRM_DEBUG_DRIVER("has EU power gating: %s\n",
>>>>> info->sseu.has_eu_pg ? "y" : "n");
>>>>> +
>>>>> + /* Initialize PM interrupt register offsets */
>>>>> + if (INTEL_GEN(dev_priv) >= 8) {
>>>>> + info->pm_iir_offset = GEN8_GT_IIR(2);
>>>>> + info->pm_imr_offset = GEN8_GT_IMR(2);
>>>>> + info->pm_ier_offset = GEN8_GT_IER(2);
>>>>> + } else {
>>>>> + info->pm_iir_offset = GEN6_PMIIR;
>>>>> + info->pm_imr_offset = GEN6_PMIMR;
>>>>> + info->pm_ier_offset = GEN6_PMIER;
>>>>> + }
>>>>
>>>> If you are going to take another pass at this, move these into the
>>>> static tables in i915_pci.c
>>>>
>>>> Updating GEN6_FEATURES and GEN8_FEATURES will then percolate into
>>>> individual platform defines.
>>>
>>> Like I wrote in reply to v1, I'm not convinced we should do this at all.
>>>
>>> What makes *these* registers so important they must be in device info?
>>> What makes most of i915_reg.h so unimportant they don't deserve the same
>>> treatment? Where do you draw the line?
>>>
>>> I'd draw the line at, no registers at device info.
>>
>> I suggested to Sagar this change during review so feel responsible to
>> chime in.
>>
>> So in general I just find the amount of times our driver asks itself
>> what it's running on a bit tasteless. :(
>>
>> I did quick and dirty check by bumping a counter in all the
>> IS_this|or|that checks, all which can be known at driver probe time, and
>> wired it up to the PMU so I can check their frequency. The annotated
>> perf stat output:
>>
>> root at e31:~# perf stat -a -e i915/whoami/ -I 1000
>> # time counts unit events
>>
>> # idle system no X running
>>
>> 1.000298100 10 i915/whoami/
>>
>> 2.000750955 8 i915/whoami/
>>
>> 3.001104193 10 i915/whoami/
>>
>> 4.001333433 10 i915/whoami/
>>
>> 5.001703162 10 i915/whoami/
>>
>> 6.002122721 10 i915/whoami/
>>
>>
>> # starting X now..
>>
>> 7.002266228 2,203 i915/whoami/
>>
>> 8.002392598 4,682 i915/whoami/
>>
>> 9.002764398 0 i915/whoami/
>>
>> 10.003027119 0 i915/whoami/
>>
>> 11.003486048 42 i915/whoami/
>>
>>
>> # X idling..
>>
>> 12.003854660 0 i915/whoami/
>>
>> 13.004221680 0 i915/whoami/
>>
>> 14.004622571 0 i915/whoami/
>>
>> 15.004968110 0 i915/whoami/
>>
>> 16.005372363 0 i915/whoami/
>>
>> 17.005778034 0 i915/whoami/
>>
>> 18.005941970 0 i915/whoami/
>>
>> 19.006313427 0 i915/whoami/
>>
>> 20.006676048 0 i915/whoami/
>>
>> 21.007059927 0 i915/whoami/
>>
>> 22.007507818 0 i915/whoami/
>>
>> 23.007887628 0 i915/whoami/
>>
>> 24.008207035 0 i915/whoami/
>>
>> 25.008580496 0 i915/whoami/
>>
>> # time counts unit events
>> 26.008949236 0 i915/whoami/
>>
>> 27.009433473 0 i915/whoami/
>>
>>
>> # gfxbench trex starting up
>>
>> 28.009677600 2,605 i915/whoami/
>>
>> 29.009941972 716 i915/whoami/
>>
>> 30.010127588 2,190 i915/whoami/
>>
>> 31.010249535 46 i915/whoami/
>>
>> 32.010383565 36 i915/whoami/
>>
>> 33.010527674 0 i915/whoami/
>>
>>
>> # trex running
>>
>> 34.010760584 4,709 i915/whoami/
>>
>> 35.011079891 5,381 i915/whoami/
>>
>> 36.011280234 5,306 i915/whoami/
>>
>> 37.011719986 5,505 i915/whoami/
>>
>> 38.012017531 5,386 i915/whoami/
>>
>> 39.012529241 5,687 i915/whoami/
>>
>> 40.012922986 6,009 i915/whoami/
>>
>> 41.013120143 5,791 i915/whoami/
>>
>> 42.013399982 5,296 i915/whoami/
>>
>> 43.013712979 5,349 i915/whoami/
>>
>> 44.014107375 5,127 i915/whoami/
>>
>> 45.014553950 5,387 i915/whoami/
>>
>> 46.014953020 5,364 i915/whoami/
>>
>> 47.015243748 4,738 i915/whoami/
>>
>> 48.015560460 4,788 i915/whoami/
>>
>> 49.015867395 4,927 i915/whoami/
>>
>> 50.016152690 4,886 i915/whoami/
>>
>>
>> So.. I am not saying these particular registers are mega important, and
>> not even saying that these 5k/s conditionals are measurable (either as
>> branches or increased code size effect), but overall the situation is a
>> bit of.. bleurgh from the elegance point of view. :(
>>
>> If we have register sets which are 100% mutually exclusive, then I see
>> them as candidates to put them in some object at probe time. It doesn't
>> have to be device_info but I don't see why we wouldn't do it. It is just
>> a different flavour of the vfunc approach after all.
>
> I think to fix something that is inelegant, you have to have a plan to
> actually improve things in the long run. IMO adding a few random
> registers to device info without a plan is less elegant and less
> consistent than the status quo.
>
> We currently have at least three ways to index pipe/port/transcoder/etc
> based registers. Combine that with storing some register offsets in
> device info, you'll have six ways. There's a chance we'll end up adding
> the register offsets to device info both statically and
> dynamically. We're already struggling with guiding new contributors to
> defining registers in the existing schemes.
>
> Now, I'm sure we could spend weeks on end devising a plan how to move
> register offsets to device info or another structure, working out the
> details and bikeshedding. After that, we could do weeks and weeks of
> busywork converting registers, causing conflicts in all the work in our
> internal trees and developers' own branches, not to mention making bug
> fix and feature backports more painful.
>
> I have a pretty strong feeling this is not a good use of our time.
I can only read here a dislike of a big rework (which I did not suggest
to start with), and dislike of the piecemeal changes. So basically
preference for a status quo. And there will be more and more of such
checks. So today it is 5k/sec, in a year it might be more.
So to clarify. Do you actually oppose some subsystem/area moving some
registers to any data structure, or just to device info?
Do you have a suggestion on what we could do? Or you simply think this
is a complete non-issue?
Regards,
Tvrtko
More information about the Intel-gfx
mailing list