From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A337CC2BA19 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 2020 10:57:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (gabe.freedesktop.org [131.252.210.177]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7D24720768 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 2020 10:57:03 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 7D24720768 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31FC16E95C; Wed, 15 Apr 2020 10:57:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mga17.intel.com (mga17.intel.com [192.55.52.151]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BF7DA6E95C for ; Wed, 15 Apr 2020 10:57:01 +0000 (UTC) IronPort-SDR: lY/zGIFOMcY3WRmHwz9GPhMtMLra7vZaKTGq9RumkkTzadebNm+yT8jOiGZKYZ2/WtC0lWC+jy xFIxz6wTpZ2A== X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga006.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.20]) by fmsmga107.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 15 Apr 2020 03:57:01 -0700 IronPort-SDR: uIhgSiCuIuBdF632yURkRU2aIVGJ6AbL9ZNakAOx8fwIl0H/sAXms6MPl5zuG7PBmBM4KYlvBr fyV7SymtWIXw== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.72,386,1580803200"; d="scan'208";a="454869949" Received: from lbrannix-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO intel.com) ([10.251.93.149]) by fmsmga006.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 15 Apr 2020 03:57:00 -0700 Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2020 13:56:59 +0300 From: Andi Shyti To: Chris Wilson Message-ID: <20200415105659.GA50947@intel.intel> References: <20200414161423.23830-1-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200414161423.23830-1-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915/gt: Try to smooth RPS spikes X-BeenThere: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Intel graphics driver community testing & development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Sender: "Intel-gfx" Hi Chris, On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 05:14:22PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > By the time we respond to the RPS interrupt [inside a worker], the GPU > may be running a different workload. As we look to make the evalution > intervals shorter, these spikes are more likely to okay. Let's try to > smooth over the spikes in the workload by comparing the EI interrupt > [up/down events] with the most recently completed EI; if both say up, > then increase the clocks, if they disagree stay the same. In principle, > this means we now take 2 up EI to go increase into the next bin, and > similary 2 down EI to decrease. However, if the worker runs fast enough, > the previous EI in the registers will be the same as triggered the > interrupt, so responsiveness remains unaffect. [Under the current scheme > where EI are on the order of 10ms, it is likely that this is true and we > compare the interrupt with the EI that caused it.] looks reasonable to me. Wouldn't it make also sense to evaluate the difference between the current and the previous pm_iir? Reviewed-by: Andi Shyti Andi _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx