[Intel-gfx] [RFC 00/17] Per-context and per-client engine busyness

[Chris Wilson]

Quoting Lionel Landwerlin (2017-10-26 18:13:13)
> On 26/10/17 14:05, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2017-10-26 14:00:28)
> >> On 26/10/2017 10:50, Lionel Landwerlin wrote:
> >>> On 26/10/17 08:34, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> >>>> On 25/10/2017 18:38, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >>>>> Quoting Chris Wilson (2017-10-25 16:47:13)
> >>>>>> Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2017-10-25 16:36:15)
> >>>>>>> From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin at intel.com>
> >>>>>> I've prototyped a quick demo of intel-client-top which produces
> >>>>>> output like:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>        neverball[  6011]:  rcs0:  41.01%  bcs0:   0.00%  vcs0:
> >>>>>> 0.00%  vecs0:   0.00%
> >>>>>>             Xorg[  5664]:  rcs0:  31.16%  bcs0:   0.00%  vcs0:
> >>>>>> 0.00%  vecs0:   0.00%
> >>>>>>            xfwm4[  5727]:  rcs0:   0.00%  bcs0:   0.00%  vcs0:
> >>>>>> 0.00%  vecs0:   0.00%
> >>>>> +1
> >>>>> +2 for a graph ;)
> >>>> Where are those placement students when you need them! :)
> >>> I won't be your student, but I could like to wire this into gputop.
> >> I was thinking gputop as well but did find the time to look at it yet.
> > We don't even ship gputop or the perf generator in igt... Can we at
> > least make noises towards owning that code...
> > -Chris
> >
> It would be nice to have stuff in single repo but gputop has quite a few 
> dependencies that I'm not sure igt will want.

Just add the dependencies as optional to the build scripts; we don't
have to add them to the common libs or make them mandatory except if we
want to build all the tools. (If they are that bad, just pull it in as a
submodule.) But it would be nice to exploit the synergies between the
existing tools and test/perf harnesses; even if long term ubergpuprofiler
takes over as the defacto tool for all gpus.

And we have to purge the current intel_gpu_top; killing machines since
2011.
-Chris