Intel-XE Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Umesh Nerlige Ramappa <umesh.nerlige.ramappa@intel.com>
To: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>
Cc: Riana Tauro <riana.tauro@intel.com>,
	<intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org>, <anshuman.gupta@intel.com>,
	<vinay.belgaumkar@intel.com>, <soham.purkait@intel.com>,
	Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>,
	"Himal Prasad Ghimiray" <himal.prasad.ghimiray@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 5/5] drm/xe/xe_pmu: Acquire forcewake on event init for engine events
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2025 09:42:10 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Z7i68srVjEyUpGg+@orsosgc001> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3isbafrfmgy7bi2vqjq4ixecuhugqk7o7tzdlsib3wx5wtfku4@g34iofqphcxs>

On Fri, Feb 21, 2025 at 12:26:56AM -0600, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
>On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 10:45:46PM -0600, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
>>On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 05:14:07PM -0800, Umesh Nerlige Ramappa wrote:
>>>On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 03:46:55PM -0600, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
>>>>On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 03:38:13PM +0530, Riana Tauro wrote:
>>>>>When the engine events are created, acquire GT forcewake to read gpm
>>>>>timestamp required for the events and release on event destroy. This
>>>>>cannot be done during read due to the raw spinlock held my pmu.
>>>>>
>>>>>v2: remove forcewake counting (Umesh)
>>>>>v3: remove extra space (Umesh)
>>>>>
>>>>>Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
>>>>>Cc: Himal Prasad Ghimiray <himal.prasad.ghimiray@intel.com>
>>>>>Signed-off-by: Riana Tauro <riana.tauro@intel.com>
>>>>>Reviewed-by: Umesh Nerlige Ramappa <umesh.nerlige.ramappa@intel.com>
>>>>>---
>>>>>drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pmu.c       | 52 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>>>>>drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pmu_types.h |  4 +++
>>>>>2 files changed, 54 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>>diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pmu.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pmu.c
>>>>>index dc89fa6d0ec5..67693d642f5a 100644
>>>>>--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pmu.c
>>>>>+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pmu.c
>>>>>@@ -7,6 +7,7 @@
>>>>>#include <linux/device.h>
>>>>>
>>>>>#include "xe_device.h"
>>>>>+#include "xe_force_wake.h"
>>>>>#include "xe_gt_idle.h"
>>>>>#include "xe_guc_engine_activity.h"
>>>>>#include "xe_hw_engine.h"
>>>>>@@ -102,6 +103,37 @@ static struct xe_hw_engine *event_to_hwe(struct perf_event *event)
>>>>>	return hwe;
>>>>>}
>>>>>
>>>>>+static bool is_engine_event(u64 config)
>>>>>+{
>>>>>+	unsigned int event_id = config_to_event_id(config);
>>>>>+
>>>>>+	return (event_id == XE_PMU_EVENT_ENGINE_TOTAL_TICKS ||
>>>>>+		event_id == XE_PMU_EVENT_ENGINE_ACTIVE_TICKS);
>>>>>+}
>>>>>+
>>>>>+static bool event_gt_forcewake(struct perf_event *event)
>>>>>+{
>>>>>+	struct xe_device *xe = container_of(event->pmu, typeof(*xe), pmu.base);
>>>>>+	u64 config = event->attr.config;
>>>>>+	struct xe_pmu *pmu = &xe->pmu;
>>>>>+	struct xe_gt *gt;
>>>>>+	unsigned int fw_ref;
>>>>>+
>>>>>+	if (!is_engine_event(config))
>>>>>+		return true;
>>>>>+
>>>>>+	gt = xe_device_get_gt(xe, config_to_gt_id(config));
>>>>>+
>>>>>+	fw_ref = xe_force_wake_get(gt_to_fw(gt), XE_FW_GT);
>>>>>+	if (!fw_ref)
>>>>>+		return false;
>>>>>+
>>>>>+	if (!pmu->fw_ref)
>>>>>+		pmu->fw_ref = fw_ref;
>>>>
>>>>how this shared fw_ref is supposed to work for multiple
>>>>perf_event_open()?
>>>
>>>Agree, not ideal, but I don't see an issue. This forcewake is only 
>>>being taken for engine-* events and the domain is always XE_FW_GT. 
>>>Looking at xe_force_wake_get(), I see that it returns a mask of 
>>>domains enabled. In this case, it would be the XE_FW_GT. The 
>>>return value is just stored so that the corresponding event 
>>>destroy can put the forcewake.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>fd1 = perf_event_open( ... gt=0 ...);
>>>>
>>>>	event_get_forcewake()
>>>>		pmu->fw_ref = xe_force_wake_get()
>>>>
>>>>fd2 = perf_event_open( ... gt=1 ...);
>>>>
>>>>	event_get_forcewake()
>>>>		// get the forcewake, but don't save the ref
>>>>
>>>>forcewake for gt1 is never put.
>>>
>>>pmu->fw_ref should be identical for all events taking this forcewake.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Or even multiple perf_event_open() for the same gt: we will not handle
>>>>the count correctly.
>>>
>>>The count is actually handled in domain->ref in the forcewake 
>>>implementation and note that forcewake is always taken for every 
>>>engine event that is being initialized and hence always being put 
>>>for every event that is destroyed. This code is not refcounting 
>>>that.
>>
>>so... we never set pmu->fw_ref back to 0 and any event destroy will try to
>>put the force wake? That seems a different bug that avoids the bug I
>>was thinking about.

oh, yeah missed that. That's a bug.

Thanks,
Umesh

  parent reply	other threads:[~2025-02-21 17:42 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-02-14 10:08 [PATCH v7 0/5] PMU support for engine activity Riana Tauro
2025-02-14  9:54 ` ✓ CI.Patch_applied: success for PMU support for engine activity (rev3) Patchwork
2025-02-14  9:55 ` ✗ CI.checkpatch: warning " Patchwork
2025-02-14  9:56 ` ✓ CI.KUnit: success " Patchwork
2025-02-14 10:08 ` [PATCH v7 1/5] drm/xe: Add engine activity support Riana Tauro
2025-02-14 10:08 ` [PATCH v7 2/5] drm/xe/trace: Add trace for engine activity Riana Tauro
2025-02-14 10:08 ` [PATCH v7 3/5] drm/xe/guc: Expose engine activity only for supported GuC version Riana Tauro
2025-02-14 11:32   ` Michal Wajdeczko
2025-02-14 10:08 ` [PATCH v7 4/5] drm/xe/xe_pmu: Add PMU support for engine activity Riana Tauro
2025-02-14 10:08 ` [PATCH v7 5/5] drm/xe/xe_pmu: Acquire forcewake on event init for engine events Riana Tauro
2025-02-14  9:50   ` Ghimiray, Himal Prasad
2025-02-20 21:46   ` Lucas De Marchi
2025-02-21  1:14     ` Umesh Nerlige Ramappa
2025-02-21  4:45       ` Lucas De Marchi
2025-02-21  6:26         ` Riana Tauro
2025-02-21  6:26         ` Lucas De Marchi
2025-02-21  6:32           ` Riana Tauro
2025-02-21 17:42           ` Umesh Nerlige Ramappa [this message]
2025-02-14 10:12 ` ✓ CI.Build: success for PMU support for engine activity (rev3) Patchwork
2025-02-14 10:15 ` ✓ CI.Hooks: " Patchwork
2025-02-14 10:16 ` ✓ CI.checksparse: " Patchwork
2025-02-14 10:35 ` ✓ Xe.CI.BAT: " Patchwork
2025-02-15  6:36 ` ✗ Xe.CI.Full: failure " Patchwork

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=Z7i68srVjEyUpGg+@orsosgc001 \
    --to=umesh.nerlige.ramappa@intel.com \
    --cc=anshuman.gupta@intel.com \
    --cc=himal.prasad.ghimiray@intel.com \
    --cc=intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=lucas.demarchi@intel.com \
    --cc=riana.tauro@intel.com \
    --cc=rodrigo.vivi@intel.com \
    --cc=soham.purkait@intel.com \
    --cc=vinay.belgaumkar@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox