On Mon, 2015-09-28 at 23:47 +0300, Imre Deak wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-09-24 at 23:29 +0300, ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com wrote:
> > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com>
> >
> > Replace the use of mem_freq/4 with czclk_freq in the vlv c0 residency
> > calculations.
> >
> > Also deal with VLV_COUNT_RANGE_HIGH which affects all RCx residency
> > counters. We have just enough bits to do this without intermediate
> > divisions.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c | 8 ++++++--
> > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
> > index 07c87e0..d78ef64 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
> > @@ -998,12 +998,16 @@ static bool vlv_c0_above(struct drm_i915_private
> > *dev_priv,
> > int threshold)
> > {
> > u64 time, c0;
> > + unsigned int mul = 100;
> >
> > if (old->cz_clock == 0)
> > return false;
> >
> > + if (I915_READ(VLV_COUNTER_CONTROL) & VLV_COUNT_RANGE_HIGH)
> > + mul <<= 8;
>
> Could've been a separate patch.
>
> > +
> > time = now->cz_clock - old->cz_clock;
> > - time *= threshold * dev_priv->mem_freq;
> > + time *= threshold * dev_priv->czclk_freq;
>
> Not introduced in this patch, but the above doesn't look correct to me.
> Time is cycles _divided_ by frequency, so imo the above should be either
> a division, or better we should calculate c0 (10ns) cycles here.
>
> >
> > /* Workload can be split between render + media, e.g. SwapBuffers
> > * being blitted in X after being rendered in mesa. To account for
> > @@ -1011,7 +1015,7 @@ static bool vlv_c0_above(struct drm_i915_private
> > *dev_priv,
> > */
> > c0 = now->render_c0 - old->render_c0;
> > c0 += now->media_c0 - old->media_c0;
> > - c0 *= 100 * VLV_CZ_CLOCK_TO_MILLI_SEC * 4 / 1000;
> > + c0 *= mul * VLV_CZ_CLOCK_TO_MILLI_SEC;
>
> Based on the above this would need to be fixed too.
Nvm the above, I realized now how it works:) I was confused seeing that
we scale by czclk freq and the 10ns freq the "opposite" time value.
Sorry for the noise.
> The above can be done as a follow-up if needed; this patch does what it
> says, so:
> Reviewed-by: Imre Deak <imre.d...@intel.com>
>
> >
> > return c0 >= time;
> > }
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
