Re: [Intel-gfx] [CI] drm/i915/pmu: Do not assume fixed hrtimer period

2018-06-05 Thread Chris Wilson
Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2018-06-05 16:06:57) > > On 05/06/2018 15:20, Chris Wilson wrote: > > Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2018-06-05 15:02:53) > >> From: Tvrtko Ursulin > >> > >> As Chris has discovered on his Ivybridge, and later automated test runs > >> have confirmed, on most of our platforms hrti

Re: [Intel-gfx] [CI] drm/i915/pmu: Do not assume fixed hrtimer period

2018-06-05 Thread Tvrtko Ursulin
On 05/06/2018 15:20, Chris Wilson wrote: Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2018-06-05 15:02:53) From: Tvrtko Ursulin As Chris has discovered on his Ivybridge, and later automated test runs have confirmed, on most of our platforms hrtimer faced with heavy GPU load can occasionally become sufficiently im

Re: [Intel-gfx] [CI] drm/i915/pmu: Do not assume fixed hrtimer period

2018-06-05 Thread Chris Wilson
Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2018-06-05 15:02:53) > From: Tvrtko Ursulin > > As Chris has discovered on his Ivybridge, and later automated test runs > have confirmed, on most of our platforms hrtimer faced with heavy GPU load > can occasionally become sufficiently imprecise to affect PMU sampling > ca

[Intel-gfx] [CI] drm/i915/pmu: Do not assume fixed hrtimer period

2018-06-05 Thread Tvrtko Ursulin
From: Tvrtko Ursulin As Chris has discovered on his Ivybridge, and later automated test runs have confirmed, on most of our platforms hrtimer faced with heavy GPU load can occasionally become sufficiently imprecise to affect PMU sampling calculations. This means we cannot assume sampling frequen