Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 0/5] Per client engine busyness

[Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com>]

On 16/12/2019 13:09, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2019-12-16 12:06:59)
>> Implementation wise we add a a bunch of files in sysfs like:
>>
>>          # cd /sys/class/drm/card0/clients/
>>          # tree
>>          .
>>          ├── 7
>>          │   ├── busy
>>          │   │   ├── 0
> 
> Prefer '0' over rcs?

I think so, saves userspace keeping a map of names to class enum. Or 
maybe it doesn't, depends. Saves us having to come up with ABI names. 
But I think I could be easily convinced either way.

>> I will post the corresponding patch to intel_gpu_top for reference as well.
> 
> The other requirement is that we need to at least prove the sysfs
> interface exists in gt. perf_sysfs?
> 
> Quick list,
> - check igt_spin_t responses (pretty much verbatim of perf_pmu.c)
> - check the client name is correct around fd passing
> - check interactions with ctx->engines[]

Yep, I know it will be needed. But haven't been bothering yet since the 
series has been in a hopeless mode for what, two years or so. I forgot 
to name it RFC this time round.. :)

Regards,

Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx