From: Eric Anholt <eric@anholt.net>
To: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@bootlin.com>
Cc: Paul Kocialkowski <paul.kocialkowski@bootlin.com>,
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@bootlin.com>,
Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] drm/vc4: Add a debugfs entry to disable/enable the load tracker
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2018 07:54:39 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87h8fufvwg.fsf@anholt.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181202081440.0ec235c4@bbrezillon>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2032 bytes --]
Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@bootlin.com> writes:
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 12:30:52 -0800
> Eric Anholt <eric@anholt.net> wrote:
>
>> Paul Kocialkowski <paul.kocialkowski@bootlin.com> writes:
>>
>> > In order to test whether the load tracker is working as expected, we
>> > need the ability to compare the commit result with the underrun
>> > indication. With the load tracker always enabled, commits that are
>> > expected to trigger an underrun are always rejected, so userspace
>> > cannot get the actual underrun indication from the hardware.
>> >
>> > Add a debugfs entry to disable/enable the load tracker, so that a DRM
>> > commit expected to trigger an underrun can go through with the load
>> > tracker disabled. The underrun indication is then available to
>> > userspace and can be checked against the commit result with the load
>> > tracker enabled.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Paul Kocialkowski <paul.kocialkowski@bootlin.com>
>>
>> Given that the load tracker is going to be conservative and say things
>> will underrun even when they might not in practice, will this actually
>> be useful for automated testing? Or is the intent to make it easier to
>> tune the load tracker by disabling it so that you can experiment freely?
>
> Yes, that's one goal, though I'm not sure IGT is supposed to contain
> such debugging tools. But the main benefit is being able to track
> regressions in the load tracking algo that makes it more (too?)
> conservative. I think people won't like this sort of regressions. The
> idea would be to settle on an acceptable load tracking algo (maybe
> after refining the proposed one), record the results (both good and too
> conservative predictions) and use that as a reference for the IGT
> test.
Yeah, I think I'm sold on it at this point -- having a tool that isn't
an automated regression test, but an automated thing that can help a
developer see how accurate the estimate is, would be useful and is worth
a bit of kernel code to support.
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 832 bytes --]
prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-12-03 15:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-11-30 16:11 [PATCH v2] drm/vc4: Add a debugfs entry to disable/enable the load tracker Paul Kocialkowski
2018-11-30 18:57 ` Boris Brezillon
2018-12-01 9:59 ` Paul Kocialkowski
2018-11-30 20:30 ` Eric Anholt
2018-12-01 9:58 ` Paul Kocialkowski
2018-12-02 7:14 ` Boris Brezillon
2018-12-03 15:54 ` Eric Anholt [this message]
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=87h8fufvwg.fsf@anholt.net \
--to=eric@anholt.net \
--cc=airlied@linux.ie \
--cc=boris.brezillon@bootlin.com \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=maxime.ripard@bootlin.com \
--cc=paul.kocialkowski@bootlin.com \
--cc=thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.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