Re: [PATCH v9 15/15] drm/i915: Add deadline based boost support

Rob Clark
2023-03-03T14:56:31Z

On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 7:21 PM Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 02, 2023 at 03:53:37PM -0800, Rob Clark wrote:
> > From: Rob Clark <robdclark@chromium.org>
> >
>
> missing some wording here...

the wording should be "Pls replace this patch, kthx" ;-)

>
> > v2: rebase
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Rob Clark <robdclark@chromium.org>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c
> > index 7503dcb9043b..44491e7e214c 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c
> > @@ -97,6 +97,25 @@ static bool i915_fence_enable_signaling(struct dma_fence *fence)
> > return i915_request_enable_breadcrumb(to_request(fence));
> > }
> >
> > +static void i915_fence_set_deadline(struct dma_fence *fence, ktime_t deadline)
> > +{
> > + struct i915_request *rq = to_request(fence);
> > +
> > + if (i915_request_completed(rq))
> > + return;
> > +
> > + if (i915_request_started(rq))
> > + return;
>
> why do we skip the boost if already started?
> don't we want to boost the freq anyway?
>
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * TODO something more clever for deadlines that are in the
> > + * future. I think probably track the nearest deadline in
> > + * rq->timeline and set timer to trigger boost accordingly?
> > + */
>
> I'm afraid it will be very hard to find some heuristics of what's
> late enough for the boost no?
> I mean, how early to boost the freq on an upcoming deadline for the
> timer?

So, from my understanding of i915 boosting, it applies more
specifically to a given request (vs msm which just bumps up the freq
until the next devfreq sampling period which then recalculates target
freq based on busy cycles and avg freq over the last sampling period).
For msm I just set a timer for 3ms before the deadline and boost if
the fence isn't signaled when the timer fires. It is kinda impossible
to predict, even for userspace, how long a job will take to complete,
so the goal isn't really to finish the specified job by the deadline,
but instead to avoid devfreq landing at a local minimum (maximum?)

AFAIU what I _think_ would make sense for i915 is to do the same thing
you do if you miss a vblank pageflip deadline if the deadline passes
without the fence signaling.

BR,
-R

> > +
> > + intel_rps_boost(rq);
> > +}
> > +
> > static signed long i915_fence_wait(struct dma_fence *fence,
> > bool interruptible,
> > signed long timeout)
> > @@ -182,6 +201,7 @@ const struct dma_fence_ops i915_fence_ops = {
> > .signaled = i915_fence_signaled,
> > .wait = i915_fence_wait,
> > .release = i915_fence_release,
> > + .set_deadline = i915_fence_set_deadline,
> > };
> >
> > static void irq_execute_cb(struct irq_work *wrk)
> > --
> > 2.39.1
> >