[Intel-xe] [PATCH v2 2/2] drm/xe/pmu: Enable PMU interface

[Iddamsetty, Aravind]

On 24-07-2023 22:01, Dixit, Ashutosh wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 09:05:53 -0700, Iddamsetty, Aravind wrote:
>>
>> On 24-07-2023 21:22, Dixit, Ashutosh wrote:
>> Hi Ashutosh,
>>
>>> On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 01:03:23 -0700, Iddamsetty, Aravind wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Aravind,
>>>
>>>> On 22-07-2023 11:34, Dixit, Ashutosh wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 16:36:02 -0700, Dixit, Ashutosh wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 04:51:09 -0700, Iddamsetty, Aravind wrote:
>>>>>>>>> +void engine_group_busyness_store(struct xe_gt *gt)
>>>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>>>> +	struct xe_pmu *pmu = &gt->tile->xe->pmu;
>>>>>>>>> +	unsigned int gt_id = gt->info.id;
>>>>>>>>> +	unsigned long flags;
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> +	spin_lock_irqsave(&pmu->lock, flags);
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> +	store_sample(pmu, gt_id, __XE_SAMPLE_RENDER_GROUP_BUSY,
>>>>>>>>> +		     __engine_group_busyness_read(gt, XE_PMU_RENDER_GROUP_BUSY(0)));
>>>>>>>>> +	store_sample(pmu, gt_id, __XE_SAMPLE_COPY_GROUP_BUSY,
>>>>>>>>> +		     __engine_group_busyness_read(gt, XE_PMU_COPY_GROUP_BUSY(0)));
>>>>>>>>> +	store_sample(pmu, gt_id, __XE_SAMPLE_MEDIA_GROUP_BUSY,
>>>>>>>>> +		     __engine_group_busyness_read(gt, XE_PMU_MEDIA_GROUP_BUSY(0)));
>>>>>>>>> +	store_sample(pmu, gt_id, __XE_SAMPLE_ANY_ENGINE_GROUP_BUSY,
>>>>>>>>> +		     __engine_group_busyness_read(gt, XE_PMU_ANY_ENGINE_GROUP_BUSY(0)));
>>>>>
>>>>> Here why should we store everything, we should store only those events
>>>>> which are enabled?
>>>>
>>>> The events are enabled only when they are opened which can happen after
>>>> the device is suspended hence we need to store all. As in the present
>>>> case device is put to suspend immediately after probe and event is
>>>> opened post driver load is done.
>>>
>>> I don't think we can justify doing expensive PCIe reads and increasing the
>>> time to go into runtime suspend, when PMU might not being used at all.
>>>
>>> If we store only enabled samples and start storing them only after they are
>>> enabled, what would be the consequence of this? The first non-zero sample
>>> seen by the perf tool would be wrong and later samples will be fine?
>>
>> Why do you say it is wrong perf reports relative from the time an event
>> is opened.
> 
> I am asking you what is the consequence. Initial values will all be zero
> and then there is some activity and we get a non zero value but this will
> include all the previous activity so the first difference we send to perf
> will be large/wrong I think.

correct if we just store the enabled events in suspend, any other event
will have 0 initial value and when we read the register later it will
have all the accumulation and since past value we have is 0 we would end
up reporting the entire value which is wrong.

> 
>>
>>>
>>> If there is a consequence, we might have to go back to what I was saying
>>> earlier about waking the device up and reading the enabled counter when
>>> xe_pmu_event_start happens, to initialize the counter values. I am assuming
>>> this will work?
>>
>> xe_pmu_event_start can be called when device is in suspend so we shall
>> not wake up the device i.e event being enabled when in suspend, so if we
>> do not store while going to suspend we will not have any value to
>> consider when event is enabled after suspend as we need to present
>> relative value.
> 
> That is why I am saying wake up the device and initialize the counters in
> xe_pmu_event_start.

Afaik since PMU doesn't take DRM reference we shall not wake up the
device. if we were allowed to wake up the device why do we even need to
store during suspend. when ever PMU event is opened we could wake up the
device and read the register directly.

Thanks,
Aravind.
> 
>>>
>>> Doing this IMO would be better than always doing these PCIe reads on
>>> runtime suspend even when PMU is not being used
>>
>> we have been doing these in i915 not sure if it affected any timing
>> requirements for runtime suspend.
> 
> Hmm i915 indeed seems to be reading the RC6 residency in __gt_park even
> when RC6 event is not enabled or PMU might not be used.
> 
> @Tvrtko, any comments here?
> 
> Thanks.
> --
> Ashutosh