Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v3] drm/i915: program wm blocks to at least blocks required per line

["Ville Syrjälä" <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>]

On Wed, Apr 06, 2022 at 08:43:11PM +0300, Vinod Govindapillai wrote:
> In configurations with single DRAM channel, for usecases like
> 4K 60 Hz, FIFO underruns are observed quite frequently. Looks
> like the wm0 watermark values need to bumped up because the wm0
> memory latency calculations are probably not taking the DRAM
> channel's impact into account.
> 
> As per the Bspec 49325, if the ddb allocation can hold at least
> one plane_blocks_per_line we should have selected method2.
> Assuming that modern HW versions have enough dbuf to hold
> at least one line, set the wm blocks to equivalent to blocks
> per line.
> 
> V2: styling and comments changes (Ville)
> V3: Updated the reviewed-by tag
> 
> cc: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
> cc: Stanislav Lisovskiy <stanislav.lisovskiy@intel.com>
> 

Normally people put all the tags in one block, ie. no extra newlines
like this. Also 'Cc:' is the normal form for these.

I was expecting to see gitlab issue links here. Maybe not Closes:
since this is not the final form I guess. But could slap them on here
as References:.

> Signed-off-by: Vinod Govindapillai <vinod.govindapillai@intel.com>
> Reviewed-by: Stanislav Lisovskiy <stanislav.lisovskiy@intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 19 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
> index 8824f269e5f5..d284ec8aff21 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
> @@ -5475,6 +5475,25 @@ static void skl_compute_plane_wm(const struct intel_crtc_state *crtc_state,
>  	}
>  
>  	blocks = fixed16_to_u32_round_up(selected_result) + 1;
> +	/*
> +	 * Lets have blocks at minimum equivalent to plane_blocks_per_line
> +	 * as there will be at minimum one line for lines configuration. This
> +	 * is a work around for FIFO underruns observed with resolutions like
> +	 * 4k 60 Hz in single channel DRAM configurations.
> +	 *
> +	 * As per the Bspec 49325, if the ddb allocation can hold at least
> +	 * one plane_blocks_per_line, we should have selected method2 in
> +	 * the above logic. Assuming that modern versions have enough dbuf
> +	 * and method2 guarantees blocks equivalent to at least 1 line,
> +	 * select the blocks as plane_blocks_per_line.
> +	 *
> +	 * TODO: Revisit the logic when we have better understanding on DRAM
> +	 * channels' impact on the level 0 memory latency and the relevant
> +	 * wm calculations.
> +	 */
> +	if (skl_wm_has_lines(dev_priv, level))
> +		blocks = max_t(u32, blocks,
> +			       fixed16_to_u32_round_up(wp->plane_blocks_per_line));

A simple max() should do since the types are the same.

>  	lines = div_round_up_fixed16(selected_result,
>  				     wp->plane_blocks_per_line);
>  
> -- 
> 2.25.1

-- 
Ville Syrjälä
Intel