[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 4/7] drm/i915/perf: lock powergating configuration to default when active

Fri Sep 7 09:55:46 UTC 2018

On 07/09/2018 10:39, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>
> On 07/09/2018 10:23, Lionel Landwerlin wrote:
>> On 07/09/2018 09:26, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>>>
>>> On 06/09/2018 11:36, Lionel Landwerlin wrote:
>>>> On 06/09/2018 11:22, Chris Wilson wrote:
>>>>> Quoting Lionel Landwerlin (2018-09-06 11:18:01)
>>>>>> On 06/09/2018 11:10, Chris Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>> Quoting Lionel Landwerlin (2018-09-06 10:57:47)
>>>>>>>> On 05/09/2018 15:22, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>>>>>>>>> From: Lionel Landwerlin <lionel.g.landwerlin at intel.com>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If some of the contexts submitting workloads to the GPU have been
>>>>>>>>> configured to shutdown slices/subslices, we might loose the NOA
>>>>>>>>> configurations written in the NOA muxes.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> One possible solution to this problem is to reprogram the NOA 
>>>>>>>>> muxes
>>>>>>>>> when we switch to a new context. We initially tried this in the
>>>>>>>>> workaround batchbuffer but some concerns where raised about 
>>>>>>>>> the cost
>>>>>>>>> of reprogramming at every context switch. This solution is 
>>>>>>>>> also not
>>>>>>>>> without consequences from the userspace point of view. 
>>>>>>>>> Reprogramming
>>>>>>>>> of the muxes can only happen once the powergating 
>>>>>>>>> configuration has
>>>>>>>>> changed (which happens after context switch). This means for a 
>>>>>>>>> window
>>>>>>>>> of time during the recording, counters recorded by the OA unit 
>>>>>>>>> might
>>>>>>>>> be invalid. This requires userspace dealing with OA reports to 
>>>>>>>>> discard
>>>>>>>>> the invalid values.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Minimizing the reprogramming could be implemented by tracking 
>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>> last programmed configuration somewhere in GGTT and use 
>>>>>>>>> MI_PREDICATE
>>>>>>>>> to discard some of the programming commands, but the command 
>>>>>>>>> streamer
>>>>>>>>> would still have to parse all the MI_LRI instructions in the
>>>>>>>>> workaround batchbuffer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Another solution, which this change implements, is to simply 
>>>>>>>>> disregard
>>>>>>>>> the user requested configuration for the period of time when 
>>>>>>>>> i915/perf
>>>>>>>>> is active. There is no known issue with this apart from a 
>>>>>>>>> performance
>>>>>>>>> penality for some media workloads that benefit from running on a
>>>>>>>>> partially powergated GPU. We already prevent RC6 from 
>>>>>>>>> affecting the
>>>>>>>>> programming so it doesn't sound completely unreasonable to 
>>>>>>>>> hold on
>>>>>>>>> powergating for the same reason.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> v2: Leave RPCS programming in intel_lrc.c (Lionel)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> v3: Update for s/union intel_sseu/struct intel_sseu/ (Lionel)
>>>>>>>>>        More to_intel_context() (Tvrtko)
>>>>>>>>>        s/dev_priv/i915/ (Tvrtko)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Tvrtko Ursulin:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> v4:
>>>>>>>>>     * Rebase for make_rpcs changes.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> v5:
>>>>>>>>>     * Apply OA restriction from make_rpcs directly.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> v6:
>>>>>>>>>     * Rebase for context image setup changes.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Lionel Landwerlin <lionel.g.landwerlin at intel.com>
>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin at intel.com>
>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>     drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_perf.c |  5 +++++
>>>>>>>>>     drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c | 30 
>>>>>>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++----------
>>>>>>>>>     drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.h |  3 +++
>>>>>>>>>     3 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_perf.c 
>>>>>>>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_perf.c
>>>>>>>>> index ccb20230df2c..dd65b72bddd4 100644
>>>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_perf.c
>>>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_perf.c
>>>>>>>>> @@ -1677,6 +1677,11 @@ static void 
>>>>>>>>> gen8_update_reg_state_unlocked(struct i915_gem_context *ctx,
>>>>>>>>>                 CTX_REG(reg_state, state_offset, flex_regs[i], 
>>>>>>>>> value);
>>>>>>>>>         }
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> +     CTX_REG(reg_state, CTX_R_PWR_CLK_STATE, 
>>>>>>>>> GEN8_R_PWR_CLK_STATE,
>>>>>>>>> +             gen8_make_rpcs(dev_priv,
>>>>>>>>> + &to_intel_context(ctx,
>>>>>>>>> + dev_priv->engine[RCS])->sseu));
>>>>>>>> I think there is one issue I missed on the previous iterations 
>>>>>>>> of this
>>>>>>>> patch.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This gen8_update_reg_state_unlocked() is called when the GPU is 
>>>>>>>> parked
>>>>>>>> on the kernel context.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's supposed to update all contexts, but I think we might not 
>>>>>>>> be able
>>>>>>>> to update the kernel context image while the GPU is using it.
>>>>>>> The kernel context is only ever taken in extremis (you are either
>>>>>>> parking or stalling userspace) so I don't care.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The patch exposing the RPCS configuration to userspace will make 
>>>>>> use of
>>>>>> the kernel context while OA/perf is enabled. Even if it 
>>>>>> reprograms the
>>>>>> locked value that will break the power configuration stability on 
>>>>>> Gen11
>>>>>> (because the locked configuration will be different from the kernel
>>>>>> context configuration).
>>>>> Sure, but as you point out that's only on changing configuration.
>>>>>
>>>>> What's missing in the patch is that we only bail early if the new 
>>>>> sseu
>>>>> matches the ce->sseu, but that doesn't necessarily match whats in the
>>>>> context due to OA. (Or maybe I missed the conversion to rpcs value 
>>>>> and
>>>>> checking.)
>>>>> -Chris
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yep, because the gen8_make_rpcs() post processes the values store 
>>>> at the gem context level, we risk rerunning the kernel context to 
>>>> write the exiting value.
>>>> Sorry this is all so messy :(
>>>
>>> Lets see if I managed to follow here.
>>>
>>> The current code indeed bails out at the set ctx param level if the 
>>> requested state matches the ce->state. My thinking was that 
>>> ce->state is the master state and whatever happens in "post 
>>> processing" via gen8_make_rpcs should be hidden from it since the 
>>> design is that the i915_perf.c will re-configure all contexts when 
>>> the OA active status changes (to either direction).
>>>
>>> So I don't see a problem in those two interactions.
>>
>>
>> Let's say you have contextA with sseu(slice,subslice)=(0x1/0xff) for 
>> ICL.
>>
>> You then enable OA which locks the configuration at (0x1,0xf).
>>
>> The kernel context has retained its (0x1/0xff) configuration.
>>
>>
>> And after you change the config of contextA to (0x1,0x7).
>>
>>
>> This would lead to the kernel context scheduled with (0x1,0xff) while 
>> OA is active.
>
> Okay that's a problem discussed in the paragraph below - that the 
> kernel context is not updated at all. But is it a problem for OA? Will 
> it mess up some counters even if kernel context isn't executing 
> anything interacting with them? Or is it?

What the HW is going to do to the NOA logic in power configuration 
changes is not really documented.
Experimentally on SKL GT4, it seems a change in power configuration will 
trigger a power off of everything before applying the power at the new 
configuration.
So that would imply loosing the NOA programming when we switch to the 
kernel context which means invalid values in the counters.

>
>>
>>>
>>> Apart from one, get_param_sseu will lie a bit - we can discuss about 
>>> this one more. At one point I suggested we have two sets of masks in 
>>> the uAPI, requested and active in a way. So userspace could query 
>>> what it set and what is actually active.
>>>
>>> Now second issue is if i915_perf.c is able to reprogram the kernel 
>>> config.
>>>
>>> Here its true, it will write to the context image and that will get 
>>> overwritten by context save.
>>>
>>> If that is a problem for OA, I was initially if a throw-away second 
>>> "kernel" context could be use to re-program the real one, but 
>>> perhaps even simpler - what about a mmio write to program the RPCS 
>>> while kernel context is active?
>>
>>
>> Documentation says : "This register must not be programmed directly 
>> through CPU MMIO cycle."
>>
>>
>> Sorry :(
>
> Ugh.. okay, help me understand if kernel context absolutely needs to 
> follow the "lock" for OA to work and then we'll see what to do.

I think so.

Your idea of a throw away context to reprogramming every seems sound.

Thanks,

-
Lionel

>
> Regards,
>
> Tvrtko
>