[Intel-gfx] [igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t] i915/perf_pmu: Measure how many batches can fit into the ring

[Summers, Stuart]

On Wed, 2019-12-04 at 13:20 +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Do not blindly assume 30 spin batches will always fit into the ring,
> but
> use our measurement tool instead.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>
> Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin at intel.com>
> ---
>  tests/perf_pmu.c | 4 +++-
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tests/perf_pmu.c b/tests/perf_pmu.c
> index de4c231dd..8e50ac9a0 100644
> --- a/tests/perf_pmu.c
> +++ b/tests/perf_pmu.c
> @@ -42,6 +42,7 @@
>  #include "igt_perf.h"
>  #include "igt_sysfs.h"
>  #include "igt_pm.h"
> +#include "i915/gem_ring.h"
>  #include "sw_sync.h"
>  
>  IGT_TEST_DESCRIPTION("Test the i915 pmu perf interface");
> @@ -1276,8 +1277,9 @@ static void cpu_hotplug(int gem_fd)
>  static void
>  test_interrupts(int gem_fd)
>  {
> +	const int target =
> +		gem_measure_ring_inflight(gem_fd, I915_EXEC_DEFAULT,
> 0);

In case we ever want to change this engine, should we make
I915_EXEC_DEFAULT a macro within this test?

Looks a lot better. My only question here is can we make
gem_measure_ring_inflight a generic routine instead of something i915-
specific, since we're using this in one of the cross-arch tests?

Thanks,
Stuart

>  	const unsigned int test_duration_ms = 1000;
> -	const int target = 30;
>  	igt_spin_t *spin[target];
>  	struct pollfd pfd;
>  	uint64_t idle, busy;
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3270 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx/attachments/20191204/62af3c2b/attachment.bin>