From: "Dixit, Ashutosh" <ashutosh.dixit@intel.com>
To: Vinay Belgaumkar <vinay.belgaumkar@intel.com>
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org,
Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@intel.com>,
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/mtl: Connect root sysfs entries to GT0
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2023 19:15:45 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <874jsvazvi.wl-ashutosh.dixit@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230113022752.3151066-1-vinay.belgaumkar@intel.com>
On Thu, 12 Jan 2023 18:27:52 -0800, Vinay Belgaumkar wrote:
>
> Reading current root sysfs entries gives a min/max of all
> GTs. Updating this so we return default (GT0) values when root
> level sysfs entries are accessed, instead of min/max for the card.
> Tests that are not multi GT capable will read incorrect sysfs
> values without this change on multi-GT platforms like MTL.
>
> Fixes: a8a4f0467d70 ("drm/i915: Fix CFI violations in gt_sysfs")
We seem to be proposing to change the previous sysfs ABI with this patch?
But even then it doesn't seem correct to use gt0 values for device level
sysfs. Actually I received the following comment about using max freq
across gt's for device level freq's (gt_act_freq_mhz etc.) from one of our
users:
-----
On Sun, 06 Nov 2022 08:54:04 -0800, Lawson, Lowren H wrote:
Why show maximum? Wouldn’t average be more accurate to the user experience?
As a user, I expect the ‘card’ frequency to be relatively accurate to the
entire card. If I see 1.6GHz, but the card is behaving as if it’s running a
1.0 & 1.6GHz on the different compute tiles, I’m going to see a massive
decrease in compute workload performance while at ‘maximum’ frequency.
-----
So I am not sure why max/min were previously chosen. Why not the average?
Thanks.
--
Ashutosh
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Dixit, Ashutosh" <ashutosh.dixit@intel.com>
To: Vinay Belgaumkar <vinay.belgaumkar@intel.com>
Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com>,
intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org,
Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@intel.com>,
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/mtl: Connect root sysfs entries to GT0
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2023 19:15:45 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <874jsvazvi.wl-ashutosh.dixit@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230113022752.3151066-1-vinay.belgaumkar@intel.com>
On Thu, 12 Jan 2023 18:27:52 -0800, Vinay Belgaumkar wrote:
>
> Reading current root sysfs entries gives a min/max of all
> GTs. Updating this so we return default (GT0) values when root
> level sysfs entries are accessed, instead of min/max for the card.
> Tests that are not multi GT capable will read incorrect sysfs
> values without this change on multi-GT platforms like MTL.
>
> Fixes: a8a4f0467d70 ("drm/i915: Fix CFI violations in gt_sysfs")
We seem to be proposing to change the previous sysfs ABI with this patch?
But even then it doesn't seem correct to use gt0 values for device level
sysfs. Actually I received the following comment about using max freq
across gt's for device level freq's (gt_act_freq_mhz etc.) from one of our
users:
-----
On Sun, 06 Nov 2022 08:54:04 -0800, Lawson, Lowren H wrote:
Why show maximum? Wouldn’t average be more accurate to the user experience?
As a user, I expect the ‘card’ frequency to be relatively accurate to the
entire card. If I see 1.6GHz, but the card is behaving as if it’s running a
1.0 & 1.6GHz on the different compute tiles, I’m going to see a massive
decrease in compute workload performance while at ‘maximum’ frequency.
-----
So I am not sure why max/min were previously chosen. Why not the average?
Thanks.
--
Ashutosh
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-01-13 3:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-01-13 2:27 [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/mtl: Connect root sysfs entries to GT0 Vinay Belgaumkar
2023-01-13 2:27 ` Vinay Belgaumkar
2023-01-13 3:15 ` Dixit, Ashutosh [this message]
2023-01-13 3:15 ` [Intel-gfx] " Dixit, Ashutosh
2023-01-13 4:26 ` Belgaumkar, Vinay
2023-01-13 4:26 ` Belgaumkar, Vinay
2023-01-13 4:37 ` Dixit, Ashutosh
2023-01-13 4:37 ` Dixit, Ashutosh
2023-01-13 4:48 ` Belgaumkar, Vinay
2023-01-13 4:48 ` Belgaumkar, Vinay
2023-01-16 18:58 ` Andi Shyti
2023-01-16 18:58 ` Andi Shyti
2023-01-16 19:35 ` Belgaumkar, Vinay
2023-01-16 19:35 ` Belgaumkar, Vinay
2023-01-16 19:49 ` Andi Shyti
2023-01-16 19:49 ` Andi Shyti
2023-01-13 14:21 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2023-01-13 3:43 ` [Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success for " Patchwork
2023-01-13 14:10 ` [Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.IGT: " Patchwork
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=874jsvazvi.wl-ashutosh.dixit@intel.com \
--to=ashutosh.dixit@intel.com \
--cc=andi.shyti@intel.com \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=vinay.belgaumkar@intel.com \
/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.