From: "Lisovskiy, Stanislav" <stanislav.lisovskiy@intel.com>
To: "Govindapillai, Vinod" <vinod.govindapillai@intel.com>
Cc: "intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org"
<intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
"Roper, Matthew D" <matthew.d.roper@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Power management SAGV/QGV calculation rounding fix
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2023 09:49:41 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZBF4ld2EIvTjK28i@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9ffb0ff303cb4141e71a2766f14ec746988c42db.camel@intel.com>
On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 11:50:20AM +0200, Govindapillai, Vinod wrote:
> Hi Stan
>
> Few other places also do not ceil the result as per the 64631
>
> deinterleave, peakbw, clperchgroup
>
> Well! I am not sure if this has any real impact, but FYI
As per BSpec we are now supposed to floor all the calculations, but
not ceil - bw estimation should be rather pessimistic than optimistic.
Stan
>
> Vinod
>
> On Tue, 2023-03-14 at 11:27 +0200, Govindapillai, Vinod wrote:
> > Hi Stan,
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 2023-03-10 at 16:40 +0200, Stanislav Lisovskiy wrote:
> > > Currently in our bandwidth calculations for QGV
> > > points we round up the calculations.
> > > Recently there was an update to BSpec, recommending
> > > to floor those calculations.
> > > The reasoning behind this was that, overestimating
> > > BW demand with that rounding can cause SAGV to use
> > > next QGV point, even though the less demanding could
> > > be used, thus resulting in waste of power.
> > >
> > > BSpec: 64636
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Stanislav Lisovskiy <stanislav.lisovskiy@intel.com>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_bw.c | 10 +++++-----
> > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_bw.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_bw.c
> > > index 202321ffbe2a..8723ddd4d568 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_bw.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_bw.c
> > > @@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ static int dg1_mchbar_read_qgv_point_info(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> > > dclk_reference = 6; /* 6 * 16.666 MHz = 100 MHz */
> > > else
> > > dclk_reference = 8; /* 8 * 16.666 MHz = 133 MHz */
> > > - sp->dclk = DIV_ROUND_UP((16667 * dclk_ratio * dclk_reference) + 500, 1000);
> > > + sp->dclk = ((16667 * dclk_ratio * dclk_reference) + 500) / 1000;
> > >
> > > val = intel_uncore_read(&dev_priv->uncore, SKL_MC_BIOS_DATA_0_0_0_MCHBAR_PCU);
> > > if (val & DG1_GEAR_TYPE)
> > > @@ -87,7 +87,7 @@ static int icl_pcode_read_qgv_point_info(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> > > return ret;
> > >
> > > dclk = val & 0xffff;
> > > - sp->dclk = DIV_ROUND_UP((16667 * dclk) + (DISPLAY_VER(dev_priv) > 11 ? 500 : 0), 1000);
> > > + sp->dclk = ((16667 * dclk) + (DISPLAY_VER(dev_priv) > 11 ? 500 : 0)) / 1000;
> > > sp->t_rp = (val & 0xff0000) >> 16;
> > > sp->t_rcd = (val & 0xff000000) >> 24;
> > >
> > > @@ -179,7 +179,7 @@ static int mtl_read_qgv_point_info(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> > > val2 = intel_uncore_read(&dev_priv->uncore,
> > > MTL_MEM_SS_INFO_QGV_POINT_HIGH(point));
> > > dclk = REG_FIELD_GET(MTL_DCLK_MASK, val);
> > > - sp->dclk = DIV_ROUND_UP((16667 * dclk), 1000);
> > > + sp->dclk = (16667 * dclk) / 1000;
> >
> > Not related to this patch. But as per Bspec 64631 and 64636
> > sp->dclk = (16667 * dclk + 500) / 1000;
> >
> > Does that need to be corrected as well?
> >
> > BR
> > vinod
> >
> >
> > > sp->t_rp = REG_FIELD_GET(MTL_TRP_MASK, val);
> > > sp->t_rcd = REG_FIELD_GET(MTL_TRCD_MASK, val);
> > >
> > > @@ -425,7 +425,7 @@ static int icl_get_bw_info(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, const struct
> > > intel
> > > */
> > > ct = max_t(int, sp->t_rc, sp->t_rp + sp->t_rcd +
> > > (clpchgroup - 1) * qi.t_bl + sp->t_rdpre);
> > > - bw = DIV_ROUND_UP(sp->dclk * clpchgroup * 32 * num_channels, ct);
> > > + bw = (sp->dclk * clpchgroup * 32 * num_channels) / ct;
> > >
> > > bi->deratedbw[j] = min(maxdebw,
> > > bw * (100 - sa->derating) / 100);
> > > @@ -527,7 +527,7 @@ static int tgl_get_bw_info(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, const struct
> > > intel
> > > */
> > > ct = max_t(int, sp->t_rc, sp->t_rp + sp->t_rcd +
> > > (clpchgroup - 1) * qi.t_bl + sp->t_rdpre);
> > > - bw = DIV_ROUND_UP(sp->dclk * clpchgroup * 32 * num_channels, ct);
> > > + bw = (sp->dclk * clpchgroup * 32 * num_channels) / ct;
> > >
> > > bi->deratedbw[j] = min(maxdebw,
> > > bw * (100 - sa->derating) / 100);
> >
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-03-15 7:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-03-10 14:40 [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Power management SAGV/QGV calculation rounding fix Stanislav Lisovskiy
2023-03-14 9:27 ` Govindapillai, Vinod
2023-03-14 9:50 ` Govindapillai, Vinod
2023-03-15 7:49 ` Lisovskiy, Stanislav [this message]
2023-03-15 7:54 ` Lisovskiy, Stanislav
2023-03-15 9:08 ` Govindapillai, Vinod
2023-03-15 9:38 ` Lisovskiy, Stanislav
2023-03-15 9:58 ` Lisovskiy, Stanislav
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=ZBF4ld2EIvTjK28i@intel.com \
--to=stanislav.lisovskiy@intel.com \
--cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=matthew.d.roper@intel.com \
--cc=vinod.govindapillai@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.