From: "Ville Syrjälä" <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] drm/i915: Reduce frequency of unspecific HSW reg debugging
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 18:16:19 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150904151619.GQ29811@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150904145328.GD26318@phenom.ffwll.local>
On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 04:53:28PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 03:18:14PM +0300, Mika Kuoppala wrote:
> > Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@linux.intel.com> writes:
> >
> > > Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> writes:
> > >
> > >> On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 11:40:26AM +0300, Mika Kuoppala wrote:
> > >>> Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> writes:
> > >>>
> > >>> > On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 04:51:45PM -0300, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
> > >>> >> From: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> Delay the expensive read on the FPGA_DBG register from once per mmio to
> > >>> >> once per forcewake section when we are doing the general wellbeing
> > >>> >> check rather than the targetted error detection. This almost reduces
> > >>> >> the overhead of the debug facility (for example when submitting execlists)
> > >>> >> to zero whilst keeping the debug checks around.
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> v2: Enable one-shot mmio debugging from the interrupt check as well as a
> > >>> >> safeguard to catch invalid display writes from outside the powerwell.
> > >>> >> v3 (from Paulo): rebase since gen9 addition and intel_uncore_check_errors
> > >>> >> removal
> > >>> >>
> > >>> >> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> > >>> >> Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
> > >>> >> Cc: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@intel.com>
> > >>> >> Signed-off-by: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@intel.com>
> > >>> >
> > >>> > I'm unclear how this interacts (or how it sould interact) with patch 2:
> > >>> > Forcwake is mostly for GT registers, but patch 2 also tries to optimize
> > >>> > forcwake for GT registers. Do we really need both?
> > >>>
> > >>> Assuming the hardware detects access to unpowered domains and
> > >>> to unregistered ranges by setting this bit, I would say that patch 2
> > >>> is not needed. One could argue that patch 2 is somewhat harmful as
> > >>> current register access pattern affects the detection.
> > >>>
> > >>> Also the commit message in patch 2 is not valid wrt the code.
> > >>>
> > >>> With skl, the debug bit seems to decay with time, instead of being
> > >>> sticky. So in there we could argue that in patch 4/4, the reading
> > >>> should be done before (and after) the forcewake scope.
> > >>
> > >> Do we know where the bits decay? Could it be that the firmware (dmc) does
> > >> something with it, or maybe it gets reset when we change display power
> > >> wells?
> > >
> > > Now when trying to actually measure the decay time, I can't reproduce
> > > the same behaviour anymore. Now it is sticky. Up until the display
> > > power off clears the register without explicit clearing write.
> > >
> > > Now I just wonder why I saw decay in just less than millisecond,
> > > few weeks back. I am willing to blame my imperfect test setup on this,
> > > and something just cleared it behind my back.
> > >
> >
> > Well, apparently this is in display power well, like Daniel
> > noted. Which means that if display is off, the write won't
> > stick. (but stays in some pci write buffer for 0.5usecs?
> > until it vanishes, thus the decay)
> >
> > Test setup was otherwise water proof, but if one does
> > skl debugging from console and bdw debugging through
> > ssh, the display power well states are quite different...
>
> Hm, doesn't that mean that we can't do delayed checking since what we
> really want is spot unclaimed register writes when the power well is off?
> At least it was really useful to catch the oddball runtime pm management
> bug. So perhaps we indeed want the range-based filter and not this patch
> here?
Would it also make sense to enable/disable the checks from the power
well enable/disable hooks, so that we would minimize the overhead when
the power well is actually enabled?
--
Ville Syrjälä
Intel OTC
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-09-04 15:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-09-03 19:51 [PATCH 0/4] Unclaimed register improvements Paulo Zanoni
2015-09-03 19:51 ` [PATCH 1/4] drm/i915: make unclaimed registers be errors again Paulo Zanoni
2015-09-03 19:51 ` [PATCH 2/4] drm/i915: restrict unclaimed register checking Paulo Zanoni
2015-09-04 6:53 ` Mika Kuoppala
2015-09-04 13:38 ` Zanoni, Paulo R
2015-09-04 13:54 ` Ville Syrjälä
2015-09-03 19:51 ` [PATCH 3/4] drm/i915: remove intel_uncore_check_errors() Paulo Zanoni
2015-09-04 11:47 ` Mika Kuoppala
2015-09-03 19:51 ` [PATCH 4/4] drm/i915: Reduce frequency of unspecific HSW reg debugging Paulo Zanoni
2015-09-04 7:02 ` Mika Kuoppala
2015-09-04 13:39 ` Zanoni, Paulo R
2015-09-04 8:27 ` Daniel Vetter
2015-09-04 8:40 ` Mika Kuoppala
2015-09-04 8:59 ` Daniel Vetter
2015-09-04 11:45 ` Mika Kuoppala
2015-09-04 12:18 ` Mika Kuoppala
2015-09-04 14:53 ` Daniel Vetter
2015-09-04 15:16 ` Ville Syrjälä [this message]
2015-09-04 15:20 ` Ville Syrjälä
2015-09-04 15:23 ` Daniel Vetter
2015-09-04 13:46 ` Zanoni, Paulo R
2015-09-04 13:57 ` Mika Kuoppala
2015-09-04 14:08 ` Paulo Zanoni
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=20150904151619.GQ29811@intel.com \
--to=ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com \
--cc=daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch \
--cc=daniel@ffwll.ch \
--cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox