[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2 1/1] drm/i915: Save PM interrupt register offsets in device info
Jani Nikula
jani.nikula at linux.intel.com
Thu Oct 26 13:24:55 UTC 2017
On Thu, 26 Oct 2017, Jani Nikula <jani.nikula at linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Oct 2017, Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin at linux.intel.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Any change would have to be piecemeal anyway. I don't have a dislike for
> that per se. I'm just saying that adding some registers to some data
> structures on a whim leads to an ugly inconsistent end result, and it
> gets cargo-culted to more and more places, uncontrolled. The driver will
> become harder to maintain. The changes must be done piecemeal, but there
> needs to be a plan where we want to take all this in the long term.
>
> And that plan is going to be an awful bikeshed fest.
>
>> 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.
>
> Even with cached register offsets you'll anyway be doing 5k fetches of
> the cached offsets per second. Sure you'll save a branch and couple of
> immediates in code, but I can't imagine it being a huge penalty.
>
>> 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?
>
> This is not a non-issue, but, to be quite honest, I'd rather see people
> go to bugzilla and fix a dozen actual issues that are hitting CI or end
> users out there, today.
As to the registers in question which apparently do get accessed a lot,
I'd go with what Ville suggests in [1]. Fits our existing models,
doesn't introduce anything new, addresses the issue.
BR,
Jani.
[1] http://mid.mail-archive.com/20171024175559.GG10981@intel.com
>
>
> BR,
> Jani.
--
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center
More information about the Intel-gfx
mailing list