[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/guc/slpc: Use non-blocking H2G for waitboost

[John Harrison]

On 5/16/2022 00:59, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Sat, 14 May 2022, Vinay Belgaumkar<vinay.belgaumkar at intel.com>  wrote:
>> SLPC min/max frequency updates require H2G calls. We are seeing
>> timeouts when GuC channel is backed up and it is unable to respond
>> in a timely fashion causing warnings and affecting CI.
>>
>> This is seen when waitboosting happens during a stress test.
>> this patch updates the waitboost path to use a non-blocking
>> H2G call instead, which returns as soon as the message is
>> successfully transmitted.
>>
>> v2: Use drm_notice to report any errors that might occur while
>> sending the waitboost H2G request (Tvrtko)
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Vinay Belgaumkar<vinay.belgaumkar at intel.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_slpc.c | 44 +++++++++++++++++----
>>   1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_slpc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_slpc.c
>> index 1db833da42df..e5e869c96262 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_slpc.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_slpc.c
>> @@ -98,6 +98,30 @@ static u32 slpc_get_state(struct intel_guc_slpc *slpc)
>>   	return data->header.global_state;
>>   }
>>   
>> +static int guc_action_slpc_set_param_nb(struct intel_guc *guc, u8 id, u32 value)
>> +{
>> +	u32 request[] = {
> static const
>
>> +		GUC_ACTION_HOST2GUC_PC_SLPC_REQUEST,
>> +		SLPC_EVENT(SLPC_EVENT_PARAMETER_SET, 2),
>> +		id,
>> +		value,
>> +	};
>> +	int ret;
>> +
>> +	ret = intel_guc_send_nb(guc, request, ARRAY_SIZE(request), 0);
>> +
>> +	return ret > 0 ? -EPROTO : ret;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int slpc_set_param_nb(struct intel_guc_slpc *slpc, u8 id, u32 value)
>> +{
>> +	struct intel_guc *guc = slpc_to_guc(slpc);
>> +
>> +	GEM_BUG_ON(id >= SLPC_MAX_PARAM);
>> +
>> +	return guc_action_slpc_set_param_nb(guc, id, value);
>> +}
>> +
>>   static int guc_action_slpc_set_param(struct intel_guc *guc, u8 id, u32 value)
>>   {
>>   	u32 request[] = {
> Ditto here, and the whole gt/uc directory seems to have tons of these
> u32 action/request array variables on stack, with the required
> initialization, that could be in rodata.
>
> Please fix all of them.
>
> BR,
> Jani.
But the only constant is the action code. Everything else is parameters 
and will be different on each call.

You mean something like this?

    static const u32 template[] = {
         action,
    };
    u32 *request = kmalloc_array(sizeof(*request), 4);
    memcpy(request, template, sizeof(*request) * 1);
    request[1] = param0;
    request[2] = param1;
    request[3] = param2;
    ret = send(request);
    kfree(request);
    return ret;


Not seeing how that would be an improvement. It's a lot more code, a lot 
less readable, more prone to bugs due to incorrect structure sizes 
and/or params in the wrong place. The current version is easy to read 
and therefore to maintain, almost impossible to get wrong, and only puts 
a few words on the stack. I think the largest request is region of 15 
words? I'm not seeing what the problem is.

John.


>> @@ -208,12 +232,10 @@ static int slpc_force_min_freq(struct intel_guc_slpc *slpc, u32 freq)
>>   	 */
>>   
>>   	with_intel_runtime_pm(&i915->runtime_pm, wakeref) {
>> -		ret = slpc_set_param(slpc,
>> -				     SLPC_PARAM_GLOBAL_MIN_GT_UNSLICE_FREQ_MHZ,
>> -				     freq);
>> -		if (ret)
>> -			i915_probe_error(i915, "Unable to force min freq to %u: %d",
>> -					 freq, ret);
>> +		/* Non-blocking request will avoid stalls */
>> +		ret = slpc_set_param_nb(slpc,
>> +					SLPC_PARAM_GLOBAL_MIN_GT_UNSLICE_FREQ_MHZ,
>> +					freq);
>>   	}
>>   
>>   	return ret;
>> @@ -222,6 +244,8 @@ static int slpc_force_min_freq(struct intel_guc_slpc *slpc, u32 freq)
>>   static void slpc_boost_work(struct work_struct *work)
>>   {
>>   	struct intel_guc_slpc *slpc = container_of(work, typeof(*slpc), boost_work);
>> +	struct drm_i915_private *i915 = slpc_to_i915(slpc);
>> +	int err;
>>   
>>   	/*
>>   	 * Raise min freq to boost. It's possible that
>> @@ -231,8 +255,12 @@ static void slpc_boost_work(struct work_struct *work)
>>   	 */
>>   	mutex_lock(&slpc->lock);
>>   	if (atomic_read(&slpc->num_waiters)) {
>> -		slpc_force_min_freq(slpc, slpc->boost_freq);
>> -		slpc->num_boosts++;
>> +		err = slpc_force_min_freq(slpc, slpc->boost_freq);
>> +		if (!err)
>> +			slpc->num_boosts++;
>> +		else
>> +			drm_notice(&i915->drm, "Failed to send waitboost request (%d)\n",
>> +				   err);
>>   	}
>>   	mutex_unlock(&slpc->lock);
>>   }
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx/attachments/20220607/cb628fcb/attachment-0001.htm>