[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v4] drm/i915: Speed up DMC firmware loading

[Chris Wilson]

Quoting David Weinehall (2017-09-05 14:33:25)
> On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 02:25:36PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > Quoting David Weinehall (2017-09-05 14:10:50)
> > > Currently we're doing:
> > > 
> > > 1. acquire lock
> > > 2. write word to hardware
> > > 3. release lock
> > > 4. repeat from 1
> > > 
> > > to load the DMC firmware. Due to the cost of acquiring/releasing a lock,
> > > and the size of the DMC firmware, this slows down DMC loading a lot.
> > > 
> > > This patch simply acquires the lock, writes the entire firmware,
> > > then releases the lock.  Testing shows resume speedups
> > > in the order of 10ms on platforms with DMC firmware (GEN9+).
> > > 
> > > v2: Per feedback from Chris & Ville there's no need to do the whole
> > >     forcewake dance, so lose that bit (Chris, Ville)
> > > 
> > > v3: Actually send the new version of the patch...
> > > 
> > > v4: Don't acquire the uncore lock. Disable preempt. (Chris)
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: David Weinehall <david.weinehall at linux.intel.com>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_csr.c | 8 +++++++-
> > >  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_csr.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_csr.c
> > > index 965988f79a55..cdfb624eb82d 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_csr.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_csr.c
> > > @@ -252,8 +252,14 @@ void intel_csr_load_program(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> > >         }
> > >  
> > >         fw_size = dev_priv->csr.dmc_fw_size;
> > > +       assert_rpm_wakelock_held(dev_priv);
> > > +
> > > +       preempt_disable();
> > > +
> > >         for (i = 0; i < fw_size; i++)
> > > -               I915_WRITE(CSR_PROGRAM(i), payload[i]);
> > > +               I915_WRITE_FW(CSR_PROGRAM(i), payload[i]);
> > > +
> > > +       preempt_enable();
> > >  
> > >         for (i = 0; i < dev_priv->csr.mmio_count; i++) {
> > >                 I915_WRITE(dev_priv->csr.mmioaddr[i],
> > 
> > Looked into extending the coverage to the second loop?
> 
> The second loop didn't really show up in my benchmarks,
> so I decided to minimise the changes.

Fair enough, looks like it is limited to 8 writes.

Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>
-Chris