From: "Ville Syrjälä" <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
To: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: Initialise min/max frequencies before updating RPS registers
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 16:15:16 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130826131516.GQ11428@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1377521156-10045-1-git-send-email-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 01:45:56PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> The RPS register writing routines use the current value of min/max to
> set certain limits and interrupt gating. If we set those afterwards, we
> risk setting up the hw incorrectly and losing power management events,
> and worse, trigger some internal assertions.
>
> Reorder the calling sequences to be correct, and remove the then
> unrequired clamping from inside set_rps(). And for a bonus, fix the bug
> of calling gen6_set_rps() from Valleyview.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c | 2 +-
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_sysfs.c | 16 ++++++++--------
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c | 19 +++++--------------
> 3 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> index 2a276c8..b2b1730 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
> @@ -2113,7 +2113,7 @@ i915_max_freq_set(void *data, u64 val)
> if (IS_VALLEYVIEW(dev)) {
> val = vlv_freq_opcode(dev_priv->mem_freq, val);
> dev_priv->rps.max_delay = val;
> - gen6_set_rps(dev, val);
> + valleyview_set_rps(dev, val);
Not caused by your patch, but why on earth are we telling the GPU
to switch to the new max_freq here?
In the old way of doing things I presume this should have been
set_rps(cur_delay). And in the new way we should add the
same 'cur_delay > val' check here that we have in i915_sysfs.
Maybe we should just have some kind of
rps_set_minmax(new_min, new_max) func that takes care of
this stuff in a single location.
> } else {
> do_div(val, GT_FREQUENCY_MULTIPLIER);
> dev_priv->rps.max_delay = val;
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_sysfs.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_sysfs.c
> index c8c4112..05195c0 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_sysfs.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_sysfs.c
> @@ -294,15 +294,15 @@ static ssize_t gt_max_freq_mhz_store(struct device *kdev,
> DRM_DEBUG("User requested overclocking to %d\n",
> val * GT_FREQUENCY_MULTIPLIER);
>
> + dev_priv->rps.max_delay = val;
> +
> if (dev_priv->rps.cur_delay > val) {
> - if (IS_VALLEYVIEW(dev_priv->dev))
> - valleyview_set_rps(dev_priv->dev, val);
> + if (IS_VALLEYVIEW(dev))
> + valleyview_set_rps(dev, val);
> else
> - gen6_set_rps(dev_priv->dev, val);
> + gen6_set_rps(dev, val);
> }
>
> - dev_priv->rps.max_delay = val;
> -
> mutex_unlock(&dev_priv->rps.hw_lock);
>
> return count;
> @@ -359,15 +359,15 @@ static ssize_t gt_min_freq_mhz_store(struct device *kdev,
> return -EINVAL;
> }
>
> + dev_priv->rps.min_delay = val;
> +
> if (dev_priv->rps.cur_delay < val) {
> if (IS_VALLEYVIEW(dev))
> valleyview_set_rps(dev, val);
> else
> - gen6_set_rps(dev_priv->dev, val);
> + gen6_set_rps(dev, val);
> }
>
> - dev_priv->rps.min_delay = val;
> -
> mutex_unlock(&dev_priv->rps.hw_lock);
>
> return count;
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
> index 6767e2b..f995dda 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
> @@ -3263,26 +3263,19 @@ static void ironlake_disable_drps(struct drm_device *dev)
> * ourselves, instead of doing a rmw cycle (which might result in us clearing
> * all limits and the gpu stuck at whatever frequency it is at atm).
> */
> -static u32 gen6_rps_limits(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, u8 *val)
> +static u32 gen6_rps_limits(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, u8 val)
> {
> u32 limits;
>
> - limits = 0;
> -
> - if (*val >= dev_priv->rps.max_delay)
> - *val = dev_priv->rps.max_delay;
> - limits |= dev_priv->rps.max_delay << 24;
> -
> /* Only set the down limit when we've reached the lowest level to avoid
> * getting more interrupts, otherwise leave this clear. This prevents a
> * race in the hw when coming out of rc6: There's a tiny window where
> * the hw runs at the minimal clock before selecting the desired
> * frequency, if the down threshold expires in that window we will not
> * receive a down interrupt. */
> - if (*val <= dev_priv->rps.min_delay) {
> - *val = dev_priv->rps.min_delay;
> + limits = dev_priv->rps.max_delay << 24;
> + if (val <= dev_priv->rps.min_delay)
> limits |= dev_priv->rps.min_delay << 16;
> - }
>
> return limits;
> }
> @@ -3382,7 +3375,6 @@ static void gen6_set_rps_thresholds(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, u8 val)
> void gen6_set_rps(struct drm_device *dev, u8 val)
> {
> struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = dev->dev_private;
> - u32 limits = gen6_rps_limits(dev_priv, &val);
>
> WARN_ON(!mutex_is_locked(&dev_priv->rps.hw_lock));
> WARN_ON(val > dev_priv->rps.max_delay);
> @@ -3405,7 +3397,8 @@ void gen6_set_rps(struct drm_device *dev, u8 val)
> /* Make sure we continue to get interrupts
> * until we hit the minimum or maximum frequencies.
> */
> - I915_WRITE(GEN6_RP_INTERRUPT_LIMITS, limits);
> + I915_WRITE(GEN6_RP_INTERRUPT_LIMITS,
> + gen6_rps_limits(dev_priv, val));
>
> POSTING_READ(GEN6_RPNSWREQ);
>
> @@ -3463,8 +3456,6 @@ void valleyview_set_rps(struct drm_device *dev, u8 val)
> {
> struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = dev->dev_private;
>
> - gen6_rps_limits(dev_priv, &val);
> -
> WARN_ON(!mutex_is_locked(&dev_priv->rps.hw_lock));
> WARN_ON(val > dev_priv->rps.max_delay);
> WARN_ON(val < dev_priv->rps.min_delay);
> --
> 1.8.4.rc3
>
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
--
Ville Syrjälä
Intel OTC
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-08-26 13:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-08-26 12:45 [PATCH] drm/i915: Initialise min/max frequencies before updating RPS registers Chris Wilson
2013-08-26 13:15 ` Ville Syrjälä [this message]
2013-09-24 10:47 ` Daniel Vetter
2013-09-24 11:12 ` Chris Wilson
2013-09-24 11:14 ` Daniel Vetter
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2013-08-25 16:32 Chris Wilson
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20130826131516.GQ11428@intel.com \
--to=ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com \
--cc=chris@chris-wilson.co.uk \
--cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.