[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: program wm blocks to at least blocks required per line
Govindapillai, Vinod
vinod.govindapillai at intel.com
Wed Apr 6 14:15:28 UTC 2022
On Wed, 2022-04-06 at 17:01 +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 06, 2022 at 04:45:26PM +0300, Lisovskiy, Stanislav wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 06, 2022 at 03:48:02PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 04, 2022 at 04:49:18PM +0300, Vinod Govindapillai wrote:
> > > > In configurations with single DRAM channel, for usecases like
> > > > 4K 60 Hz, FIFO underruns are observed quite frequently. Looks
> > > > like the wm0 watermark values need to bumped up because the wm0
> > > > memory latency calculations are probably not taking the DRAM
> > > > channel's impact into account.
> > > >
> > > > As per the Bspec 49325, if the ddb allocation can hold at least
> > > > one plane_blocks_per_line we should have selected method2.
> > > > Assuming that modern HW versions have enough dbuf to hold
> > > > at least one line, set the wm blocks to equivalent to blocks
> > > > per line.
> > > >
> > > > cc: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com>
> > > > cc: Stanislav Lisovskiy <stanislav.lisovskiy at intel.com>
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Vinod Govindapillai <vinod.govindapillai at intel.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c | 19 ++++++++++++++++++-
> > > > 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
> > > > index 8824f269e5f5..ae28a8c63ca4 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
> > > > @@ -5474,7 +5474,24 @@ static void skl_compute_plane_wm(const struct intel_crtc_state
> > > > *crtc_state,
> > > > }
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > - blocks = fixed16_to_u32_round_up(selected_result) + 1;
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * Lets have blocks at minimum equivalent to plane_blocks_per_line
> > > > + * as there will be at minimum one line for lines configuration.
> > > > + *
> > > > + * As per the Bspec 49325, if the ddb allocation can hold at least
> > > > + * one plane_blocks_per_line, we should have selected method2 in
> > > > + * the above logic. Assuming that modern versions have enough dbuf
> > > > + * and method2 guarantees blocks equivalent to at least 1 line,
> > > > + * select the blocks as plane_blocks_per_line.
> > > > + *
> > > > + * TODO: Revisit the logic when we have better understanding on DRAM
> > > > + * channels' impact on the level 0 memory latency and the relevant
> > > > + * wm calculations.
> > > > + */
> > > > + blocks = skl_wm_has_lines(dev_priv, level) ?
> > > > + max_t(u32, fixed16_to_u32_round_up(selected_result) + 1,
> > > > + fixed16_to_u32_round_up(wp->plane_blocks_per_line)) :
> > > > + fixed16_to_u32_round_up(selected_result) + 1;
> > >
> > > That's looks rather convoluted.
> > >
> > > blocks = fixed16_to_u32_round_up(selected_result) + 1;
> > > + /* blah */
> > > + if (has_lines)
> > > + blocks = max(blocks, fixed16_to_u32_round_up(wp->plane_blocks_per_line));
> >
> > We probably need to do similar refactoring in the whole function ;-)
> >
> > > Also since Art said nothing like this should actually be needed
> > > I think the comment should make it a bit more clear that this
> > > is just a hack to work around the underruns with some single
> > > memory channel configurations.
> >
> > It is actually not quite a hack, because we are missing that condition
> > implementation from BSpec 49325, which instructs us to select method2
> > when ddb blocks allocation is known and that ratio is >= 1.
In the slides sent by Art, It is mentioned that driver should be using the wm results to arrive at
optimum ddb allocations. So I guess the best solution would be to identify the extra latency because
of the single DRAM channel and calculate the wm.
>
> The ddb allocation is not yet known, so we're implementing the
> algorithm 100% correctly.
>
> And this patch does not implement that misisng part anyway.
Thanks. Updated the patch as per your comments and V2 sent.
BR
Vinod
> > Mean this one:
> >
> > "If ('plane buffer allocation' is known and (plane buffer allocation / plane blocks per line)
> > >=1)
> > Selected Result Blocks = Method 2"
> >
> > Stan
> >
> > >
> > > > lines = div_round_up_fixed16(selected_result,
> > > > wp->plane_blocks_per_line);
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > 2.25.1
> > >
> > > --
> > > Ville Syrjälä
> > > Intel
More information about the Intel-gfx
mailing list