[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/6] drm/i915: Fix bw atomic check when switching between SAGV vs. no SAGV
Ville Syrjälä
ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com
Tue Feb 15 11:26:50 UTC 2022
On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 01:02:48PM +0200, Lisovskiy, Stanislav wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 12:10:19PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 10:59:57AM +0200, Lisovskiy, Stanislav wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 10:26:39PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 07:03:05PM +0200, Lisovskiy, Stanislav wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 12:24:57PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 12:05:36PM +0200, Lisovskiy, Stanislav wrote:
> > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 11:18:07AM +0200, Ville Syrjala wrote:
> > > > > > > > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If the only thing that is changing is SAGV vs. no SAGV but
> > > > > > > > the number of active planes and the total data rates end up
> > > > > > > > unchanged we currently bail out of intel_bw_atomic_check()
> > > > > > > > early and forget to actually compute the new WGV point
> > > > > > > > mask and thus won't actually enable/disable SAGV as requested.
> > > > > > > > This ends up poorly if we end up running with SAGV enabled
> > > > > > > > when we shouldn't. Usually ends up in underruns.
> > > > > > > > To fix this let's go through the QGV point mask computation
> > > > > > > > if anyone else already added the bw state for us.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Haven't been looking this in a while. Despite we have been
> > > > > > > looking like few revisions together still some bugs :(
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I thought SAGV vs No SAGV can't change if active planes
> > > > > > > or data rate didn't change? Because it means we probably
> > > > > > > still have same ddb allocations, which means SAGV state
> > > > > > > will just stay the same.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > SAGV can change due to watermarks/ddb allocations. The easiest
> > > > > > way to trip this up is to try to use the async flip wm0/ddb
> > > > > > optimization. That immediately forgets to turn off SAGV and
> > > > > > we get underruns, whcih is how I noticed this. And I don't
> > > > > > immediately see any easy proof that this couldn't also happen
> > > > > > due to some other plane changes.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thats the way it was initially implemented even before SAGV was added.
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, it wasn't a problem as long as SAGV was not enabled.
> > > >
> > > > > I think it can be dated back to the very first bw check was implemented.
> > > > >
> > > > > commit c457d9cf256e942138a54a2e80349ee7fe20c391
> > > > > Author: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com>
> > > > > Date: Fri May 24 18:36:14 2019 +0300
> > > > >
> > > > > drm/i915: Make sure we have enough memory bandwidth on ICL
> > > > >
> > > > > +int intel_bw_atomic_check(struct intel_atomic_state *state)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = to_i915(state->base.dev);
> > > > > + struct intel_crtc_state *new_crtc_state, *old_crtc_state;
> > > > > + struct intel_bw_state *bw_state = NULL;
> > > > > + unsigned int data_rate, max_data_rate;
> > > > > + unsigned int num_active_planes;
> > > > > + struct intel_crtc *crtc;
> > > > > + int i;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + /* FIXME earlier gens need some checks too */
> > > > > + if (INTEL_GEN(dev_priv) < 11)
> > > > > + return 0;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + for_each_oldnew_intel_crtc_in_state(state, crtc, old_crtc_state,
> > > > > + new_crtc_state, i) {
> > > > > + unsigned int old_data_rate =
> > > > > + intel_bw_crtc_data_rate(old_crtc_state);
> > > > > + unsigned int new_data_rate =
> > > > > + intel_bw_crtc_data_rate(new_crtc_state);
> > > > > + unsigned int old_active_planes =
> > > > > + intel_bw_crtc_num_active_planes(old_crtc_state);
> > > > > + unsigned int new_active_planes =
> > > > > + intel_bw_crtc_num_active_planes(new_crtc_state);
> > > > > +
> > > > > + /*
> > > > > + * Avoid locking the bw state when
> > > > > + * nothing significant has changed.
> > > > > + */
> > > > > + if (old_data_rate == new_data_rate &&
> > > > > + old_active_planes == new_active_planes)
> > > > > + continue;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + bw_state = intel_atomic_get_bw_state(state);
> > > > > + if (IS_ERR(bw_state))
> > > > > + return PTR_ERR(bw_state);
> > > > >
> > > > > However, what can cause watermarks/ddb to change, besides plane state change
> > > > > and/or active planes change? We change watermarks, when we change ddb allocations
> > > > > and we change ddb allocations when active planes had changed and/or data rate
> > > > > had changed.
> > > >
> > > > The bw code only cares about the aggregate numbers from all the planes.
> > > > The planes could still change in some funny way where eg. some plane
> > > > frees up some bandwidth, but the other planes gobble up the exact same
> > > > amount and thus the aggregate numbers the bw atomic check cares about
> > > > do not change but the watermarks/ddb do.
> > > >
> > > > And as mentiioned, the async flip wm0/ddb optimization makes this trivial
> > > > to trip up since it will want to disable SAGV as there is not enough ddb
> > > > for the SAGV watermark. And async flip specifically isn't even allowed
> > > > to change anything that would affect the bandwidth utilization, and neither
> > > > is it allowed to enable/disable planes.
> > >
> > > I think the whole idea of setting ddb to minimum in case of async flip optimization
> > > was purely our idea - BSpec/HSD only mentions forbidding wm levels > 0 in case of async
> > > flip, however there is nothing about limiting ddb allocations.
> >
> > Reducing just the watermark doesn't really make sense
> > if the goal is to keep the DBUF level to a minimum. Also
> > I don't think there is any proper docs for this thing. The
> > only thing we have just has some vague notes about using
> > "minimum watermarks", whatever that means.
>
> Was it the goal? I thought limiting watermarks would by itself also
> limit package C states, thus affecting memory clocks and latency.
> Because it really doesn't say anything about keeping Dbuf allocations
> to a minimum.
The goal is to miminize the amount of data in the FIFO.
>
> >
> > >
> > > Was a bit suspicious about that whole change, to be honest - and yep, now it seems to
> > > cause some unexpected side effects.
> >
> > The bw_state vs. SAGV bug is there regardless of the wm0 optimization.
>
> I agree there is a bug. The bug is such that initial bw checks were relying
> on total data rate + active planes comparison, while it should have accounted
> data rate per plane usage.
>
> This should have been changed in SAGV patches, but probably had gone
> unnoticed both by you and me.
>
> >
> > Also the SAGV watermark is not the minimum watermark (if that is
> > the doc really means by that), the normal WM0 is the minimum watermark.
> > So even if we interpret the doc to say that we should just disable all
> > watermark levels except the smallest one (normal WM0) without changing
> > the ddb allocations we would still end up disabling SAGV.
>
> Thats actually a good question. Did they mean, disable all "regular" wm levels
> or the SAGV one also? Probably they meant what you say, but would be nice to know
> exactly.
They said neither. It's just "program minimum watermarks" which
could mean anything really. They do explicitly say "DBUF level
can also adversely affect flip performance." which I think is
the whole point of this exercise.
>
> Anyway my point here is that, we probably shouldn't use new_bw_state as a way to
> check that plane allocations had changed. Thats just confusing.
We are not checking if plane allocations have changed. We are
trying to determine if anything in the bw_state has changed.
If we have said state already then something in it may have
changed and we have to recalculate anything that may depend
on those changed things, namely pipe_sagv_reject->qgv_point_mask.
I think ideally we'd not even modify the bw_state directly from the
watermark code and we'd instead defer that to bw atomic check entirely.
But this SAGV vs. DDB business is your typical chicken vs. egg situation,
so I'm not sure that is possible to do. Would need to spend a few minutes
thinking about it I guess.
>
> May be for you as i915 guru, thats obvious however not for someone else, who might
> touch the code and we are doing open source here.
>
> Can we just add some check which explicitly does per plane data rate checks?
There is nothing interesting about per-plane data rates.
> So that we know bail out from that first cycle not only when total_data_rate/active planes
> had changed, but we check per plane data rate?
> That might actually save us also in future, if we ever get into such situation, when
> bw_state doesn't change, but ddb allocations do.
>
> I know you might say it shouldn't happen, but there is always some new stuff coming.
>
> Stan
>
> >
> > > Also we are now forcing the recalculation to be done always no matter what and using
> > > new bw state for that in a bit counterintuitive way, which I don't like.
> > > Not even sure that will always work, as we are not guaranteed to get a non-NULL
> > > new_bw_state object from calling intel_atomic_get_new_bw_state, for that purpose we
> > > typically call intel_atomic_get_bw_state, which is supposed to do that and its called only
> > > here and in cause of CDCLK recalculation, which is called in intel_cdclk_atomic_check and
> > > done right after this one.
> >
> > If there is no bw_state then bw_state->pipe_sagv_reject can't have
> > changed and there is nothing to recalculate.
> >
> > >
> > > So if we haven't called intel_atomic_get_bw_state beforehand, which we didn't because there are
> > > 2 places, where new bw state was supposed to be created to be usable by intel_atomic_get_new_bw_state
> > > - I think, we will(or might) get a NULL here, because intel_atomic_get_bw_state hasn't been called yet.
> >
> > Yes, NULL is perfectly fine.
> >
> > --
> > Ville Syrjälä
> > Intel
--
Ville Syrjälä
Intel
More information about the Intel-gfx
mailing list