This patch is not for implementation of MCBP handled by driver itself. In SRIOV use case the preemption is handle in host layer. What I do here is just check if the preemption occurs, so there’s no code to handle it.
— Sincerely Yours, Pixel On 13/10/2017, 5:03 PM, "Ding, Pixel" <pixel.d...@amd.com> wrote: >My understanding is that CP will write seqno back to preempted fence offset >when preemption occurred. Then if there is a value here we can generally know >packet with which fence is preempted. Should driver handle any other thing for >this? > > > > > > > >— >Sincerely Yours, >Pixel > > > > > > > >On 13/10/2017, 4:51 PM, "Koenig, Christian" <christian.koe...@amd.com> wrote: > >>> Is it OK to limit this information only for SRIOV VF on Tonga and Vega >>> whose format is known? It can help use to identify if MCBP is working >>> correctly or not. >>The question is where is this code for Tonga and Vega? I can't find a >>reference to fence_offs in the GFX8 nor GFX9 code we have in >>amd-staging-drm-next. >> >>And if it doesn't depend on the fence_offs in the ring printing it like >>this is just pure speculation. >> >>Regards, >>Christian. >> >>Am 13.10.2017 um 10:41 schrieb Ding, Pixel: >>> Thanks Christian, >>> >>> I’m not sure if I get your point, but yes the preemption fence offset could >>> be changed. >>> >>> Is it OK to limit this information only for SRIOV VF on Tonga and Vega >>> whose format is known? It can help use to identify if MCBP is working >>> correctly or not. >>> >>> >>> — >>> Sincerely Yours, >>> Pixel >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 13/10/2017, 4:34 PM, "Christian König" >>> <ckoenig.leichtzumer...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Am 13.10.2017 um 10:26 schrieb Pixel Ding: >>>>> From: pding <pixel.d...@amd.com> >>>>> >>>>> Only report fence for GFX ring. This can help checking MCBP feature. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: pding <pixel.d...@amd.com> >>>>> --- >>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_fence.c | 7 +++++++ >>>>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_fence.c >>>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_fence.c >>>>> index 09d5a5c..2044758 100644 >>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_fence.c >>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_fence.c >>>>> @@ -645,6 +645,13 @@ static int amdgpu_debugfs_fence_info(struct seq_file >>>>> *m, void *data) >>>>> atomic_read(&ring->fence_drv.last_seq)); >>>>> seq_printf(m, "Last emitted 0x%08x\n", >>>>> ring->fence_drv.sync_seq); >>>>> + >>>>> + if (ring->funcs->type != AMDGPU_RING_TYPE_GFX) >>>>> + break; >>>> That should probably be "continue" instead of break, or otherwise you >>>> don't print the other fences any more. >>>> >>>>> + >>>>> + seq_printf(m, "Last preempted 0x%08x\n", >>>>> + le32_to_cpu(*(ring->fence_drv.cpu_addr + 2))); >>>> Is the code to put the preemption fence there already upstream? >>>> >>>> If yes do we really do this like that for all supported generations? >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Christian. >>>> >>>>> + >>>>> } >>>>> return 0; >>>>> } >>>> >> _______________________________________________ amd-gfx mailing list amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
