From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5E86210E208 for ; Tue, 8 Nov 2022 01:31:04 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2022 17:31:02 -0800 Message-ID: <87fseuut9l.wl-ashutosh.dixit@intel.com> From: "Dixit, Ashutosh" To: "Belgaumkar, Vinay" In-Reply-To: <33646ce6-6692-1244-cb9f-4740105aadef@intel.com> References: <20221107062329.1927534-1-ashutosh.dixit@intel.com> <87mt92l2nc.wl-ashutosh.dixit@intel.com> <87leoml2g4.wl-ashutosh.dixit@intel.com> <33646ce6-6692-1244-cb9f-4740105aadef@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Subject: Re: [igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t] tests/perf_pmu: Compare against requested freq in frequency subtest List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: igt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org Errors-To: igt-dev-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Sender: "igt-dev" List-ID: On Mon, 07 Nov 2022 16:57:24 -0800, Belgaumkar, Vinay wrote: > > > On 11/7/2022 4:22 PM, Dixit, Ashutosh wrote: > > On Mon, 07 Nov 2022 16:18:31 -0800, Dixit, Ashutosh wrote: > > Hi Vinay, > > > > A question for you below. > > > >> So I submitted this patch to repro the issue and to print out the requested > >> freq from sysfs: > >> > >> https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/110630/ > >> > >> And we can see the output here: > >> > >> https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/IGTPW_8061/bat-dg2-11/igt@perf_pmu@frequency.html > >> > >> ``` > >> IGT-Version: 1.26-g1bef4d081 (x86_64) (Linux: 6.1.0-rc4-CI_DRM_12352-gc55ac6a74bd1+ x86_64) > >> Starting subtest: frequency > >> Frequency: min=300, max=2050, boost=2050 MHz > >> Min frequency: requested 349.7, actual 349.7 > >> Max frequency: requested 2048.0, actual 2048.0 > >> Sysfs requested: min 350, max 2050 > >> Stack trace: > >> #0 ../../../usr/src/igt-gpu-tools/lib/igt_core.c:1908 __igt_fail_assert() > >> #1 ../../../usr/src/igt-gpu-tools/tests/i915/perf_pmu.c:1656 __igt_unique____real_main2147() > >> #2 ../../../usr/src/igt-gpu-tools/tests/i915/perf_pmu.c:2147 main() > >> #3 [__libc_start_main+0xf3] > >> #4 [_start+0x2e] > >> Subtest frequency: FAIL (2.212s) > >> ``` > >> > >> So we clearly see the requested freq from sysfs is indeed 350 MHz so > >> SLPC/PCODE is not honoring the set min == max == boost freq (and PMU is > >> measuring what sysfs is showing). In general PCODE is the final arbiter in > >> such cases and we do occasionally see instances where set freq limits are > >> not honored. > >> > >> I would say if igt@perf_pmu@frequency is testing freq measured by PMU then > >> the patch below is correct. Whether SLPC/PCODE is honoring the set freq > >> limits should be tested in a SLPC test (which we also have). > > > > igt@perf_pmu@frequency sets 'min == max == boost == 300 MHz' but we still > > see the requested freq to be 350 MHz. Do we have a SLPC test covering this > > scenario or should we add one? This is failing on one of the DG2's. > > Does adding a delay help (around 20 ms for the h2g to go through > typically)? There is no delay but the test calls gem_quiescent_gpu() after setting 'min == max == boost == 300 MHz' and then launches a spinner. We are checking the requested freq 500 ms after the spinner is started (so plenty of time for the h2g) and still the requested freq is 350 MHz. > Also, is there a workload running when we change the min=max=boost to > 300? No, the workload is started after setting the freq and calling gem_quiescent_gpu(). > > We already check these things in our SLPC selftests. > > Thanks, > > Vinay. > > > > > Thanks. > > -- > > Ashutosh