From: Dale B Stimson <dale.b.stimson@intel.com>
To: igt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t 0/3] mmio_base via debugfs infrastructure + gem_ctx_isolation
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2020 14:40:39 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200212224038.GA9248@dbstims-dev.fm.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200212223431.11060-1-dale.b.stimson@intel.com>
My apologies for the multiple submissions of this patch series. I had to
work out an issue with an unsuspected git config value in order to make the
references function with patchwork.
On 2020-02-12 14:34:28, Dale B Stimson wrote:
> This patch series provides infrastructure to allow determination of i915
> per-engine mmio_base (which is otherwise sometimes hard to get). The provided
> method uses debugfs mmio_base information if present. Otherwise, a default
> determination is provided when possible. Also, gem_ctx_isolation is modified
> to use the new infrastructure.
>
> For example, on TGL, gem_ctx_isolation (without these or similar changes)
> will fail for subtests that use engine vcs1.
>
> The patches in this series are as they are intended to be submitted (subject
> to comments), except I would like to squash the two gem_ctx_isolation
> "relative registers" patches into one (as discussed below). Also, function
> gem_engine_mmio_base_info_dump() could be removed.
>
> On 2020-01-27, Chris wilson sent to the ML:
> [igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t 1/5] i915: Start putting the mmio_base to wider use
> [igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t 2/5] i915/gem_ctx_isolation: Check engine relative registers
> plus the following, which are not addressed here:
> [igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t 3/5] i915: Exercise preemption timeout controls in sysfs
> [igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t 4/5] i915: Exercise sysfs heartbeat controls
> [igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t 5/5] i915: Exercise timeslice sysfs property
>
> This patch list is:
> i915/gem_mmio_base.c - get mmio_base from debugfs (if possible)
> i915/gem_ctx_isolation: Check engine relative registers
> i915/gem_ctx_isolation: Check engine relative registers - Part 2
>
> The first 2020-01-27 patch obtains mmio_base information via sysfs, and depends
> on a proposed kernel change that would provide the mmio_base information
> via sysfs. It is unclear when or whether that kernel change will progress.
>
> The mmio_base information used by this patch series is available through
> debugfs now (as of kernel 5.4). If the per-engine mmio_base information is
> ever added to sysfs, it would be easy to plug that into the infrastructure
> proposed here as an additional higher-priority source of that information.
>
> This submission replaces the first patch (switching from sysfs to debugfs),
> retains the second 2020-01-27 patch
> i915/gem_ctx_isolation: Check engine relative registers
> and has a third patch that modifies the original second patch to support the
> altered API:
> i915/gem_ctx_isolation: Check engine relative registers - Part 2
>
> I propose squashing the two gem_ctx_isolation "relative registers" patches
> into one patch with author == "Chris Wilson" if Chris agrees.
>
> Some differences from the 2020-01-27 patches:
>
> The mmio_base information is fetched once into local data structures, and
> is obtained from them thereafter instead of being fetched from the kernel
> everytime it is wanted.
>
> The function that obtains the mmio_base information is called by a particular
> test that wants it, and returns a handle through which the mmio_base can be
> requested for any particular engine.
>
> These patches introduce new source files lib/i915/gem_mmio_base.c
> and lib/i915/gem_mmio_base.h. Should the code instead be placed into
> lib/i915/gem_engine_topology.c?
>
> Function gem_engine_mmio_base_info_dump presently exists to dump the
> mmio_base information to stdout for debugging or informational purposes.
> This function is not currently called. I presume this function should
> be removed. Is there any desire to keep it around for future use?
>
> The 2020-01-27 patches define function gem_engine_mmio_base() with its first
> parameter as "fd". The new patches replace the first parameter with the
> mmio_base object handle.
>
> Chris Wilson (1):
> i915/gem_ctx_isolation: Check engine relative registers
>
> Dale B Stimson (2):
> i915/gem_mmio_base.c - get mmio_base from debugfs (if possible)
> i915/gem_ctx_isolation: Check engine relative registers - Part 2
>
> lib/Makefile.sources | 2 +
> lib/i915/gem_mmio_base.c | 346 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> lib/i915/gem_mmio_base.h | 19 ++
> lib/igt.h | 1 +
> lib/meson.build | 1 +
> tests/i915/gem_ctx_isolation.c | 229 +++++++++++++---------
> 6 files changed, 506 insertions(+), 92 deletions(-)
> create mode 100644 lib/i915/gem_mmio_base.c
> create mode 100644 lib/i915/gem_mmio_base.h
>
> --
> 2.25.0
>
_______________________________________________
igt-dev mailing list
igt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/igt-dev
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Dale B Stimson <dale.b.stimson@intel.com>
To: igt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH i-g-t 0/3] mmio_base via debugfs infrastructure + gem_ctx_isolation
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2020 14:40:39 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200212224038.GA9248@dbstims-dev.fm.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200212223431.11060-1-dale.b.stimson@intel.com>
My apologies for the multiple submissions of this patch series. I had to
work out an issue with an unsuspected git config value in order to make the
references function with patchwork.
On 2020-02-12 14:34:28, Dale B Stimson wrote:
> This patch series provides infrastructure to allow determination of i915
> per-engine mmio_base (which is otherwise sometimes hard to get). The provided
> method uses debugfs mmio_base information if present. Otherwise, a default
> determination is provided when possible. Also, gem_ctx_isolation is modified
> to use the new infrastructure.
>
> For example, on TGL, gem_ctx_isolation (without these or similar changes)
> will fail for subtests that use engine vcs1.
>
> The patches in this series are as they are intended to be submitted (subject
> to comments), except I would like to squash the two gem_ctx_isolation
> "relative registers" patches into one (as discussed below). Also, function
> gem_engine_mmio_base_info_dump() could be removed.
>
> On 2020-01-27, Chris wilson sent to the ML:
> [igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t 1/5] i915: Start putting the mmio_base to wider use
> [igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t 2/5] i915/gem_ctx_isolation: Check engine relative registers
> plus the following, which are not addressed here:
> [igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t 3/5] i915: Exercise preemption timeout controls in sysfs
> [igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t 4/5] i915: Exercise sysfs heartbeat controls
> [igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t 5/5] i915: Exercise timeslice sysfs property
>
> This patch list is:
> i915/gem_mmio_base.c - get mmio_base from debugfs (if possible)
> i915/gem_ctx_isolation: Check engine relative registers
> i915/gem_ctx_isolation: Check engine relative registers - Part 2
>
> The first 2020-01-27 patch obtains mmio_base information via sysfs, and depends
> on a proposed kernel change that would provide the mmio_base information
> via sysfs. It is unclear when or whether that kernel change will progress.
>
> The mmio_base information used by this patch series is available through
> debugfs now (as of kernel 5.4). If the per-engine mmio_base information is
> ever added to sysfs, it would be easy to plug that into the infrastructure
> proposed here as an additional higher-priority source of that information.
>
> This submission replaces the first patch (switching from sysfs to debugfs),
> retains the second 2020-01-27 patch
> i915/gem_ctx_isolation: Check engine relative registers
> and has a third patch that modifies the original second patch to support the
> altered API:
> i915/gem_ctx_isolation: Check engine relative registers - Part 2
>
> I propose squashing the two gem_ctx_isolation "relative registers" patches
> into one patch with author == "Chris Wilson" if Chris agrees.
>
> Some differences from the 2020-01-27 patches:
>
> The mmio_base information is fetched once into local data structures, and
> is obtained from them thereafter instead of being fetched from the kernel
> everytime it is wanted.
>
> The function that obtains the mmio_base information is called by a particular
> test that wants it, and returns a handle through which the mmio_base can be
> requested for any particular engine.
>
> These patches introduce new source files lib/i915/gem_mmio_base.c
> and lib/i915/gem_mmio_base.h. Should the code instead be placed into
> lib/i915/gem_engine_topology.c?
>
> Function gem_engine_mmio_base_info_dump presently exists to dump the
> mmio_base information to stdout for debugging or informational purposes.
> This function is not currently called. I presume this function should
> be removed. Is there any desire to keep it around for future use?
>
> The 2020-01-27 patches define function gem_engine_mmio_base() with its first
> parameter as "fd". The new patches replace the first parameter with the
> mmio_base object handle.
>
> Chris Wilson (1):
> i915/gem_ctx_isolation: Check engine relative registers
>
> Dale B Stimson (2):
> i915/gem_mmio_base.c - get mmio_base from debugfs (if possible)
> i915/gem_ctx_isolation: Check engine relative registers - Part 2
>
> lib/Makefile.sources | 2 +
> lib/i915/gem_mmio_base.c | 346 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> lib/i915/gem_mmio_base.h | 19 ++
> lib/igt.h | 1 +
> lib/meson.build | 1 +
> tests/i915/gem_ctx_isolation.c | 229 +++++++++++++---------
> 6 files changed, 506 insertions(+), 92 deletions(-)
> create mode 100644 lib/i915/gem_mmio_base.c
> create mode 100644 lib/i915/gem_mmio_base.h
>
> --
> 2.25.0
>
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-02-12 22:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-02-12 22:34 [igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t 0/3] mmio_base via debugfs infrastructure + gem_ctx_isolation Dale B Stimson
2020-02-12 22:34 ` [Intel-gfx] " Dale B Stimson
2020-02-12 22:34 ` [igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t 1/3] i915/gem_mmio_base.c - get mmio_base from debugfs (if possible) Dale B Stimson
2020-02-12 22:34 ` [Intel-gfx] " Dale B Stimson
2020-02-12 22:34 ` [igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t 2/3] i915/gem_ctx_isolation: Check engine relative registers Dale B Stimson
2020-02-12 22:34 ` [Intel-gfx] " Dale B Stimson
2020-02-12 22:34 ` [igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t 3/3] i915/gem_ctx_isolation: Check engine relative registers - Part 2 Dale B Stimson
2020-02-12 22:34 ` [Intel-gfx] " Dale B Stimson
2020-02-12 22:40 ` Dale B Stimson [this message]
2020-02-12 22:40 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH i-g-t 0/3] mmio_base via debugfs infrastructure + gem_ctx_isolation Dale B Stimson
2020-02-12 23:30 ` [igt-dev] ✗ GitLab.Pipeline: warning for " Patchwork
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2020-02-12 18:09 [igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t 0/3] " Dale B Stimson
2020-02-11 0:46 Dale B Stimson
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=20200212224038.GA9248@dbstims-dev.fm.intel.com \
--to=dale.b.stimson@intel.com \
--cc=igt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org \
--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.