From: "Dixit, Ashutosh" <ashutosh.dixit@intel.com>
To: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com>
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v5 1/7] drm/i915/pmu: Change bitmask of enabled events to u32
Date: Wed, 17 May 2023 09:25:03 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87ednf3oyo.wl-ashutosh.dixit@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <0a1babb7-80cf-cfe7-4746-37b76934175a@linux.intel.com>
On Wed, 17 May 2023 01:26:15 -0700, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>
>
> On 17/05/2023 07:55, Umesh Nerlige Ramappa wrote:
> > On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 05:25:50PM -0700, Dixit, Ashutosh wrote:
> >> On Tue, 16 May 2023 16:35:28 -0700, Umesh Nerlige Ramappa wrote:
> >>>
> >>
> >> Hi Umesh/Tvrtko,
> >>
> >> Mostly repeating comments/questions made on the previous patch below.
>
> First of all thanks for improving this, my v1 obviously wasn't good enough.
>
> >>
> >>> From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
> >>>
> >>> Having it as u64 was a confusing (but harmless) mistake.
> >>>
> >>> Also add some asserts to make sure the internal field does not overflow
> >>> in the future.
> >>>
> >>> v2: Fix WARN_ON firing for INTERRUPT event (Umesh)
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Umesh Nerlige Ramappa <umesh.nerlige.ramappa@intel.com>
> >>> Cc: Ashutosh Dixit <ashutosh.dixit@intel.com>
> >>> ---
> >>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pmu.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++--------
> >>> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pmu.c
> >>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pmu.c
> >>> index 7ece883a7d95..96543dce2db1 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pmu.c
> >>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_pmu.c
> >>> @@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ static u8 engine_event_instance(struct perf_event
> >>> *event)
> >>> return (event->attr.config >> I915_PMU_SAMPLE_BITS) & 0xff;
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> -static bool is_engine_config(u64 config)
> >>> +static bool is_engine_config(const u64 config)
> >>> {
> >>> return config < __I915_PMU_OTHER(0);
> >>> }
> >>> @@ -88,9 +88,20 @@ static unsigned int config_bit(const u64 config)
> >>> return other_bit(config);
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> -static u64 config_mask(u64 config)
> >>> +static u32 config_mask(const u64 config)
> >>> {
> >>> - return BIT_ULL(config_bit(config));
> >>> + unsigned int bit = config_bit(config);
> >>
> >> Give that config_bit() can return -1 (I understand it is avoided in
> >> moving
> >> the code to config_mask from config_bit), maybe the code below should
> >> also
> >> have that check?
> >
> > config_mask is only called to check frequency related events in the code,
> > so I don't see it returing -1 here.
>
> Yeah that should be fine since -1 would make the below asserts fire
> anyway. (If it would get called from a different path in the future.)
>
> >>
> >> int bit = config_bit(config);
> >>
> >> if (bit != -1)
> >> {
> >> ...
> >> }
> >>
> >> Though as mentioned below the 'if (__builtin_constant_p())' would have to
> >> go. Maybe the code could even have stayed in config_bit with the check.
> >>
> >>> +
> >>> + if (__builtin_constant_p(config))
> >>> + BUILD_BUG_ON(bit >
> >>> + BITS_PER_TYPE(typeof_member(struct i915_pmu,
> >>> + enable)) - 1);
> >>
> >> Given that config comes from the event (it is event->attr.config), can
> >> this
> >> ever be a builtin constant?
> >
> > Not sure about earlier code where these checks were inside config_bit(),
> > but with changes I made, I don't see this being a builtin
> > constant. However, nothing prevents a caller from just passing a
> > builtin_constant to this in future.
>
> Are you sure? I would have thought it would always be a compile time
> constant now that the check is in config_mask. Aahhh.. with the multi-tile
> changes maybe it can't unroll the loops and calculate the masks at compile
> time. Maybe it is a bit too much and we should drop the
> __builtin_constant_p branch? Probably..
Ah yes, with the code move to config_mask, they really all are compile time
constants (provided compiler can unroll the loops) so at least that is the
justfication for leaving the __builtin_constant_p in. So I'd probably just
leave it as is (though it is a bit too much).
> But I guess it is safe to use GEM_WARN_ON_ONCE instead of WARN_ON_ONCE
> since there are no external callers (nothing coming from event) now. That
> way at least production builds don't have to have the check.
Hmm, there's a GEM_WARN_ON but no GEM_WARN_ON_ONCE. So leave that as is too
I guess.
So I'm ok with the code staying as is. Enough bike-shed on this already.
Thanks.
--
Ashutosh
>
> Regards,
>
> Tvrtko
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Umesh
> >
> >>
> >>> + else
> >>> + WARN_ON_ONCE(bit >
> >>> + BITS_PER_TYPE(typeof_member(struct i915_pmu,
> >>> + enable)) - 1);
> >>
> >> There is really an even stricter limit on what the bit can be, which is
> >> the
> >> total number of possible events but anyway this is good enough.
> >>
> >> After addressing the above, this patch is:
> >>
> >> Reviewed-by: Ashutosh Dixit <ashutosh.dixit@intel.com>
> >>
> >>> +
> >>> + return BIT(config_bit(config));
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> static bool is_engine_event(struct perf_event *event)
> >>> @@ -633,11 +644,10 @@ static void i915_pmu_enable(struct perf_event
> >>> *event)
> >>> {
> >>> struct drm_i915_private *i915 =
> >>> container_of(event->pmu, typeof(*i915), pmu.base);
> >>> + const unsigned int bit = event_bit(event);
> >>> struct i915_pmu *pmu = &i915->pmu;
> >>> unsigned long flags;
> >>> - unsigned int bit;
> >>>
> >>> - bit = event_bit(event);
> >>> if (bit == -1)
> >>> goto update;
> >>>
> >>> @@ -651,7 +661,7 @@ static void i915_pmu_enable(struct perf_event
> >>> *event)
> >>> GEM_BUG_ON(bit >= ARRAY_SIZE(pmu->enable_count));
> >>> GEM_BUG_ON(pmu->enable_count[bit] == ~0);
> >>>
> >>> - pmu->enable |= BIT_ULL(bit);
> >>> + pmu->enable |= BIT(bit);
> >>> pmu->enable_count[bit]++;
> >>>
> >>> /*
> >>> @@ -698,7 +708,7 @@ static void i915_pmu_disable(struct perf_event
> >>> *event)
> >>> {
> >>> struct drm_i915_private *i915 =
> >>> container_of(event->pmu, typeof(*i915), pmu.base);
> >>> - unsigned int bit = event_bit(event);
> >>> + const unsigned int bit = event_bit(event);
> >>> struct i915_pmu *pmu = &i915->pmu;
> >>> unsigned long flags;
> >>>
> >>> @@ -734,7 +744,7 @@ static void i915_pmu_disable(struct perf_event
> >>> *event)
> >>> * bitmask when the last listener on an event goes away.
> >>> */
> >>> if (--pmu->enable_count[bit] == 0) {
> >>> - pmu->enable &= ~BIT_ULL(bit);
> >>> + pmu->enable &= ~BIT(bit);
> >>> pmu->timer_enabled &= pmu_needs_timer(pmu, true);
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> 2.36.1
> >>>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-05-17 16:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-05-16 23:35 [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v5 0/7] Add MTL PMU support for multi-gt Umesh Nerlige Ramappa
2023-05-16 23:35 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v5 1/7] drm/i915/pmu: Change bitmask of enabled events to u32 Umesh Nerlige Ramappa
2023-05-17 0:25 ` Dixit, Ashutosh
2023-05-17 6:55 ` Umesh Nerlige Ramappa
2023-05-17 8:26 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2023-05-17 16:25 ` Dixit, Ashutosh [this message]
2023-05-17 20:15 ` Umesh Nerlige Ramappa
2023-05-17 20:15 ` Dixit, Ashutosh
2023-05-18 9:07 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2023-05-19 5:02 ` Dixit, Ashutosh
2023-05-16 23:35 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v5 2/7] drm/i915/pmu: Support PMU for all engines Umesh Nerlige Ramappa
2023-05-16 23:35 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v5 3/7] drm/i915/pmu: Skip sampling engines with no enabled counters Umesh Nerlige Ramappa
2023-05-16 23:35 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v5 4/7] drm/i915/pmu: Transform PMU parking code to be GT based Umesh Nerlige Ramappa
2023-05-16 23:35 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v5 5/7] drm/i915/pmu: Add reference counting to the sampling timer Umesh Nerlige Ramappa
2023-05-16 23:35 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v5 6/7] drm/i915/pmu: Prepare for multi-tile non-engine counters Umesh Nerlige Ramappa
2023-05-17 0:39 ` Dixit, Ashutosh
2023-05-17 6:57 ` Umesh Nerlige Ramappa
2023-05-16 23:35 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v5 7/7] drm/i915/pmu: Export counters from all tiles Umesh Nerlige Ramappa
2023-05-17 0:35 ` [Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success for Add MTL PMU support for multi-gt Patchwork
2023-05-17 11:47 ` [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=87ednf3oyo.wl-ashutosh.dixit@intel.com \
--to=ashutosh.dixit@intel.com \
--cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=tvrtko.ursulin@linux.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.