On 18/12/2024 18:18, Adrián Martínez Larumbe wrote:
From: Adrián Larumbe <adrian.laru...@collabora.com>
A previous commit enabled display of driver-internal kernel BO sizes
through the device file's fdinfo interface.
Expand the description of the relevant driver-specific key:value pairs
with the definitions of the new drm-*-internal ones.
Signed-off-by: Adrián Larumbe <adrian.laru...@collabora.com>
Reviewed-by: Mihail Atanassov <mihail.atanas...@arm.com>
---
Documentation/gpu/panthor.rst | 14 ++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/gpu/panthor.rst b/Documentation/gpu/panthor.rst
index 3f8979fa2b86..23aa3d67c9d2 100644
--- a/Documentation/gpu/panthor.rst
+++ b/Documentation/gpu/panthor.rst
@@ -26,6 +26,10 @@ the currently possible format options:
drm-cycles-panthor: 94439687187
drm-maxfreq-panthor: 1000000000 Hz
drm-curfreq-panthor: 1000000000 Hz
+ drm-total-internal: 10396 KiB
+ drm-shared-internal: 0
+ drm-active-internal: 10396 KiB
+ drm-resident-internal: 10396 KiB
drm-total-memory: 16480 KiB
drm-shared-memory: 0
drm-active-memory: 16200 KiB
@@ -44,3 +48,13 @@ driver by writing into the appropriate sysfs node::
Where `N` is a bit mask where cycle and timestamp sampling are respectively
enabled by the first and second bits.
+
+Possible `drm-*-internal` keys are: `total`, `active`, `resident` and `shared`.
+These values convey the sizes of the internal driver-owned shmem BO's that
+aren't exposed to user-space through a DRM handle, like queue ring buffers,
+sync object arrays and heap chunks. Because they are all allocated and pinned
+at creation time, `drm-resident-internal` and `drm-total-internal` should
always
+be equal. `drm-active-internal` shows the size of kernel BO's associated with
+VM's and groups currently being scheduled for execution by the GPU.
+`drm-shared-internal` is unused at present, but in the future it might stand
for
+the size of executable FW regions, since they do not belong to an open file
context.
The description is way too specific, too tied to some of the
implementations.
I also don't remember that you ever explained why totting up the
internal objects into existing regions isn't good enough. I keep asking,
you keep not explaining. Or I missed your emails somehow.
And you keep not copying me on the thread. Copying people who expressed
interest, gave past feedback, etc should be the norm.
Until we can clarify the above points I don't think this can go in.
Regards,
Tvrtko
