On 17/02/2018 11:36, Chris Wilson wrote:
Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2018-02-15 15:34:53)
From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursu...@intel.com>
A subtest to verify that the engine busyness is reported with expected
accuracy on platforms where the feature is available.
We test three patterns: 2%, 50% and 98% load per engine.
v2:
* Use spin batch instead of nop calibration.
* Various tweaks.
v3:
* Change loops to be time based.
* Use __igt_spin_batch_new inside timing sensitive loops.
* Fixed PWM sleep handling.
v4:
* Use restarting spin batch.
* Calibrate more carefully by looking at the real PWM loop.
v5:
* Made standalone.
* Better info messages.
* Tweak sleep compensation.
v6:
* Some final tweaks. (Chris Wilson)
Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursu...@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk>
---
+
+ /* Sampling platforms cannot reach the high accuracy criteria. */
+ igt_require(gem_has_execlists(gem_fd));
But we don't handle guc, right?
Correct.
igt_skip_on(gem_has_guc_submission(gem_fd)) ?
I'll dig up and rebase my old patch which implements busy stats in GuC
mode.
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/kasan_2/fi-skl-guc/igt@perf_...@busy-accuracy-2-vecs0.html
Or at least it doesn't work to sufficient accuracy. And bsw hung.
There are some occasional excursions over 15% tolerance even with
execlists on small core. Bummer. Don't want to be playing up the
tolerance game. I'll analyse in more detail and think what to do.
Do you have a link to BSW hang? Is that obviously related to PMU?
Regards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
