[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/selftests/perf: measure memcpy bw between regions
Chris Wilson
chris at chris-wilson.co.uk
Mon Jan 27 13:11:05 UTC 2020
Quoting Matthew Auld (2020-01-27 12:56:26)
> Measure the memcpy bw between our CPU accessible regions, trying all
> supported mapping combinations(WC, WB) across various sizes.
>
> Signed-off-by: Matthew Auld <matthew.auld at intel.com>
> Cc: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>
> ---
> .../drm/i915/selftests/i915_perf_selftests.h | 1 +
> .../drm/i915/selftests/intel_memory_region.c | 164 ++++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 165 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/i915_perf_selftests.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/i915_perf_selftests.h
> index 5a577a1332f5..3bf7f53e9924 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/i915_perf_selftests.h
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/i915_perf_selftests.h
> @@ -17,3 +17,4 @@
> */
> selftest(engine_cs, intel_engine_cs_perf_selftests)
> selftest(blt, i915_gem_object_blt_perf_selftests)
> +selftest(region, intel_memory_region_perf_selftests)
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/intel_memory_region.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/intel_memory_region.c
> index 3ef3620e0da5..6d493a198eb1 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/intel_memory_region.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/intel_memory_region.c
> @@ -4,6 +4,7 @@
> */
>
> #include <linux/prime_numbers.h>
> +#include <linux/sort.h>
>
> #include "../i915_selftest.h"
>
> @@ -572,6 +573,157 @@ static int igt_lmem_write_cpu(void *arg)
> return err;
> }
>
> +static const char *stringify_map_type(u32 type)
Fwiw, I've begun using repr_foo(foo). Which do we prefer?
> +{
> + switch (type) {
> + case I915_MAP_WB:
> + return "WB";
> + case I915_MAP_WC:
> + return "WC";
> + }
> +
> + return "";
> +}
> +
> +static inline struct drm_i915_gem_object *
> +create_region(struct intel_memory_region *mr, u64 size)
> +{
> + struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj;
> +
> + obj = i915_gem_object_create_region(mr, size, 0);
> + if (!IS_ERR(obj)) {
> + if (!i915_gem_object_type_has(obj,
> + I915_GEM_OBJECT_HAS_STRUCT_PAGE |
> + I915_GEM_OBJECT_HAS_IOMEM)) {
Can we not tell from the mr what properties we would end up with?
I would suggest calling it something like create_region_for_mapping() as
I had to look around to see why the type_has() was justified.
Hmm. Perhaps better (more agnostic to the pin_map) would be to try and
fail to create the map and squash the -ENODEV error there.
> + i915_gem_object_put(obj);
> + return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
> + }
> + }
> +
> + return obj;
> +}
> +
> +static int wrap_ktime_compare(const void *A, const void *B)
> +{
> + const ktime_t *a = A, *b = B;
> +
> + return ktime_compare(*a, *b);
> +}
> +
> +int _perf_memcpy(struct intel_memory_region *src_mr,
> + struct intel_memory_region *dst_mr,
> + u64 size, u32 src_type, u32 dst_type)
> +{
> + struct drm_i915_gem_object *src, *dst;
> + void *src_addr, *dst_addr;
> + ktime_t t[5];
> + int pass;
> + int ret = 0;
> +
> + src = create_region(src_mr, size);
> + if (IS_ERR(src)) {
> + ret = PTR_ERR(src);
> + goto out;
> + }
> +
> + src_addr = i915_gem_object_pin_map(src, src_type);
> + if (IS_ERR(src_addr)) {
> + ret = PTR_ERR(src_addr);
> + goto out_put_src;
> + }
> +
> + dst = create_region(dst_mr, size);
> + if (IS_ERR(dst)) {
> + ret = PTR_ERR(dst);
> + goto out_unpin_src;
> + }
> +
> + dst_addr = i915_gem_object_pin_map(dst, dst_type);
> + if (IS_ERR(dst_addr)) {
> + ret = PTR_ERR(dst_addr);
> + goto out_put_dst;
> + }
> +
> + for (pass = 0; pass < ARRAY_SIZE(t); pass++) {
> + ktime_t t0, t1;
> +
> + t0 = ktime_get();
> +
> + memcpy(dst_addr, src_addr, size);
Fwiw, different sizes of memcpy() may prove important,
(memcpy32/memcpy64). As would memcpy_from_wc.
> +
> + t1 = ktime_get();
> + t[pass] = ktime_sub(t1, t0);
> + }
> +
> + sort(t, ARRAY_SIZE(t), sizeof(*t), wrap_ktime_compare, NULL);
> + pr_info("%s src(%s, %s) -> dst(%s, %s) memcpy %llu KiB copy: %lld MiB/s\n",
> + __func__,
> + src_mr->name,
> + stringify_map_type(src_type),
> + dst_mr->name,
> + stringify_map_type(dst_type),
> + size >> 10,
> + div64_u64(mul_u32_u32(4 * size,
> + 1000 * 1000 * 1000),
> + t[1] + 2 * t[2] + t[3]) >> 20);
> +
> + i915_gem_object_unpin_map(dst);
> + __i915_gem_object_put_pages(dst);
> +out_put_dst:
> + i915_gem_object_put(dst);
> +out_unpin_src:
> + i915_gem_object_unpin_map(src);
> + __i915_gem_object_put_pages(src);
> +out_put_src:
> + i915_gem_object_put(src);
> +out:
> + if (ret == -ENODEV || ret == -ENOMEM)
> + ret = 0;
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> +int perf_memcpy(void *arg)
> +{
> + struct drm_i915_private *i915 = arg;
> + static const u32 types[] = {
> + I915_MAP_WB,
> + I915_MAP_WC,
> + };
> + static const u32 sizes[] = {
> + SZ_4K,
> + SZ_64K,
> + SZ_2M,
> + SZ_64M,
> + };
> + struct intel_memory_region *src_mr, *dst_mr;
> + int src_id, dst_id;
> + int i, j, k;
> + int ret;
> +
> + for_each_memory_region(src_mr, i915, src_id) {
> + for_each_memory_region(dst_mr, i915, dst_id) {
> + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(sizes); ++i) {
> + for (j = 0; j < ARRAY_SIZE(types); ++j) {
> + for (k = 0; k < ARRAY_SIZE(types); ++k) {
> + ret = _perf_memcpy(src_mr,
> + dst_mr,
> + sizes[i],
> + types[j],
> + types[k]);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
64M from wc could be quite slow. I might put a caveat here to stop
measuring larger sizes if we exceed a time limit.
-Chris
More information about the Intel-gfx
mailing list