From: Rob Clark robdclark@chromium.org
In some cases, like double-buffered rendering, missing vblanks can trick the GPU into running at a lower frequence, when really we want to be running at a higher frequency to not miss the vblanks in the first place.
This is partially inspired by a trick i915 does, but implemented via dma-fence for a couple of reasons:
1) To continue to be able to use the atomic helpers 2) To support cases where display and gpu are different drivers
The last patch is just proof of concept, in reality I think it may want to be a bit more clever. But sending this out as it is as an RFC to get feedback.
Rob Clark (3): dma-fence: Add boost fence op drm/atomic: Call dma_fence_boost() when we've missed a vblank drm/msm: Wire up gpu boost
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_helper.c | 11 +++++++++++ drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_fence.c | 10 ++++++++++ drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_gpu.c | 13 +++++++++++++ drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_gpu.h | 2 ++ include/linux/dma-fence.h | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 5 files changed, 62 insertions(+)
From: Rob Clark robdclark@chromium.org
Add a way to hint to the fence signaler that a fence waiter has missed a deadline waiting on the fence.
In some cases, missing a vblank can result in lower gpu utilization, when really we want to go in the opposite direction and boost gpu freq. The boost callback gives some feedback to the fence signaler that we are missing deadlines, so it can take this into account in it's freq/ utilization calculations.
Signed-off-by: Rob Clark robdclark@chromium.org --- include/linux/dma-fence.h | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+)
diff --git a/include/linux/dma-fence.h b/include/linux/dma-fence.h index 9f12efaaa93a..172702521acc 100644 --- a/include/linux/dma-fence.h +++ b/include/linux/dma-fence.h @@ -231,6 +231,17 @@ struct dma_fence_ops { signed long (*wait)(struct dma_fence *fence, bool intr, signed long timeout);
+ /** + * @boost: + * + * Optional callback, to indicate that a fence waiter missed a deadline. + * This can serve as a signal that (if possible) whatever signals the + * fence should boost it's clocks. + * + * This can be called in any context that can call dma_fence_wait(). + */ + void (*boost)(struct dma_fence *fence); + /** * @release: * @@ -586,6 +597,21 @@ static inline signed long dma_fence_wait(struct dma_fence *fence, bool intr) return ret < 0 ? ret : 0; }
+/** + * dma_fence_boost - hint from waiter that it missed a deadline + * + * @fence: the fence that caused the missed deadline + * + * This function gives a hint from a fence waiter that a deadline was + * missed, so that the fence signaler can factor this in to device + * power state decisions + */ +static inline void dma_fence_boost(struct dma_fence *fence) +{ + if (fence->ops->boost) + fence->ops->boost(fence); +} + struct dma_fence *dma_fence_get_stub(void); u64 dma_fence_context_alloc(unsigned num);
Uff, that looks very hardware specific to me.
As far as I can see you can also implement completely inside the backend by starting a timer on enable_signaling, don't you?
Christian.
Am 19.05.21 um 20:38 schrieb Rob Clark:
From: Rob Clark robdclark@chromium.org
Add a way to hint to the fence signaler that a fence waiter has missed a deadline waiting on the fence.
In some cases, missing a vblank can result in lower gpu utilization, when really we want to go in the opposite direction and boost gpu freq. The boost callback gives some feedback to the fence signaler that we are missing deadlines, so it can take this into account in it's freq/ utilization calculations.
Signed-off-by: Rob Clark robdclark@chromium.org
include/linux/dma-fence.h | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+)
diff --git a/include/linux/dma-fence.h b/include/linux/dma-fence.h index 9f12efaaa93a..172702521acc 100644 --- a/include/linux/dma-fence.h +++ b/include/linux/dma-fence.h @@ -231,6 +231,17 @@ struct dma_fence_ops { signed long (*wait)(struct dma_fence *fence, bool intr, signed long timeout);
- /**
* @boost:** Optional callback, to indicate that a fence waiter missed a deadline.* This can serve as a signal that (if possible) whatever signals the* fence should boost it's clocks.** This can be called in any context that can call dma_fence_wait().*/- void (*boost)(struct dma_fence *fence);
- /**
- @release:
@@ -586,6 +597,21 @@ static inline signed long dma_fence_wait(struct dma_fence *fence, bool intr) return ret < 0 ? ret : 0; }
+/**
- dma_fence_boost - hint from waiter that it missed a deadline
- @fence: the fence that caused the missed deadline
- This function gives a hint from a fence waiter that a deadline was
- missed, so that the fence signaler can factor this in to device
- power state decisions
- */
+static inline void dma_fence_boost(struct dma_fence *fence) +{
- if (fence->ops->boost)
fence->ops->boost(fence);+}
- struct dma_fence *dma_fence_get_stub(void); u64 dma_fence_context_alloc(unsigned num);
On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 11:47 PM Christian König christian.koenig@amd.com wrote:
Uff, that looks very hardware specific to me.
Howso? I'm not sure I agree.. and even if it was not useful for some hw, it should be useful for enough drivers (and harm no drivers), so I still think it is a good idea
The fallback plan is to go the i915 route and stop using atomic helpers and do the same thing inside the driver, but that doesn't help any of the cases where you have a separate kms and gpu driver.
As far as I can see you can also implement completely inside the backend by starting a timer on enable_signaling, don't you?
Not really.. I mean, the fact that something waited on a fence could be a useful input signal to gpu freq governor, but it is entirely insufficient..
If the cpu is spending a lot of time waiting on a fence, cpufreq will clock down so you spend less time waiting. And no problem has been solved. You absolutely need the concept of a missed deadline, and a timer doesn't give you that.
BR, -R
Christian.
Am 19.05.21 um 20:38 schrieb Rob Clark:
From: Rob Clark robdclark@chromium.org
Add a way to hint to the fence signaler that a fence waiter has missed a deadline waiting on the fence.
In some cases, missing a vblank can result in lower gpu utilization, when really we want to go in the opposite direction and boost gpu freq. The boost callback gives some feedback to the fence signaler that we are missing deadlines, so it can take this into account in it's freq/ utilization calculations.
Signed-off-by: Rob Clark robdclark@chromium.org
include/linux/dma-fence.h | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+)
diff --git a/include/linux/dma-fence.h b/include/linux/dma-fence.h index 9f12efaaa93a..172702521acc 100644 --- a/include/linux/dma-fence.h +++ b/include/linux/dma-fence.h @@ -231,6 +231,17 @@ struct dma_fence_ops { signed long (*wait)(struct dma_fence *fence, bool intr, signed long timeout);
/*** @boost:** Optional callback, to indicate that a fence waiter missed a deadline.* This can serve as a signal that (if possible) whatever signals the* fence should boost it's clocks.** This can be called in any context that can call dma_fence_wait().*/void (*boost)(struct dma_fence *fence);/** * @release: *@@ -586,6 +597,21 @@ static inline signed long dma_fence_wait(struct dma_fence *fence, bool intr) return ret < 0 ? ret : 0; }
+/**
- dma_fence_boost - hint from waiter that it missed a deadline
- @fence: the fence that caused the missed deadline
- This function gives a hint from a fence waiter that a deadline was
- missed, so that the fence signaler can factor this in to device
- power state decisions
- */
+static inline void dma_fence_boost(struct dma_fence *fence) +{
if (fence->ops->boost)fence->ops->boost(fence);+}
- struct dma_fence *dma_fence_get_stub(void); u64 dma_fence_context_alloc(unsigned num);
Am 20.05.21 um 16:07 schrieb Rob Clark:
On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 11:47 PM Christian König christian.koenig@amd.com wrote:
Uff, that looks very hardware specific to me.
Howso? I'm not sure I agree.. and even if it was not useful for some hw, it should be useful for enough drivers (and harm no drivers), so I still think it is a good idea
The fallback plan is to go the i915 route and stop using atomic helpers and do the same thing inside the driver, but that doesn't help any of the cases where you have a separate kms and gpu driver.
Yeah, that's certainly not something we want.
As far as I can see you can also implement completely inside the backend by starting a timer on enable_signaling, don't you?
Not really.. I mean, the fact that something waited on a fence could be a useful input signal to gpu freq governor, but it is entirely insufficient..
If the cpu is spending a lot of time waiting on a fence, cpufreq will clock down so you spend less time waiting. And no problem has been solved. You absolutely need the concept of a missed deadline, and a timer doesn't give you that.
Ok then I probably don't understand the use case here.
What exactly do you try to solve?
Thanks, Christian.
BR, -R
Christian.
Am 19.05.21 um 20:38 schrieb Rob Clark:
From: Rob Clark robdclark@chromium.org
Add a way to hint to the fence signaler that a fence waiter has missed a deadline waiting on the fence.
In some cases, missing a vblank can result in lower gpu utilization, when really we want to go in the opposite direction and boost gpu freq. The boost callback gives some feedback to the fence signaler that we are missing deadlines, so it can take this into account in it's freq/ utilization calculations.
Signed-off-by: Rob Clark robdclark@chromium.org
include/linux/dma-fence.h | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+)
diff --git a/include/linux/dma-fence.h b/include/linux/dma-fence.h index 9f12efaaa93a..172702521acc 100644 --- a/include/linux/dma-fence.h +++ b/include/linux/dma-fence.h @@ -231,6 +231,17 @@ struct dma_fence_ops { signed long (*wait)(struct dma_fence *fence, bool intr, signed long timeout);
/*** @boost:** Optional callback, to indicate that a fence waiter missed a deadline.* This can serve as a signal that (if possible) whatever signals the* fence should boost it's clocks.** This can be called in any context that can call dma_fence_wait().*/void (*boost)(struct dma_fence *fence);/** * @release: *@@ -586,6 +597,21 @@ static inline signed long dma_fence_wait(struct dma_fence *fence, bool intr) return ret < 0 ? ret : 0; }
+/**
- dma_fence_boost - hint from waiter that it missed a deadline
- @fence: the fence that caused the missed deadline
- This function gives a hint from a fence waiter that a deadline was
- missed, so that the fence signaler can factor this in to device
- power state decisions
- */
+static inline void dma_fence_boost(struct dma_fence *fence) +{
if (fence->ops->boost)fence->ops->boost(fence);+}
- struct dma_fence *dma_fence_get_stub(void); u64 dma_fence_context_alloc(unsigned num);
On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 7:11 AM Christian König christian.koenig@amd.com wrote:
Am 20.05.21 um 16:07 schrieb Rob Clark:
On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 11:47 PM Christian König christian.koenig@amd.com wrote:
Uff, that looks very hardware specific to me.
Howso? I'm not sure I agree.. and even if it was not useful for some hw, it should be useful for enough drivers (and harm no drivers), so I still think it is a good idea
The fallback plan is to go the i915 route and stop using atomic helpers and do the same thing inside the driver, but that doesn't help any of the cases where you have a separate kms and gpu driver.
Yeah, that's certainly not something we want.
As far as I can see you can also implement completely inside the backend by starting a timer on enable_signaling, don't you?
Not really.. I mean, the fact that something waited on a fence could be a useful input signal to gpu freq governor, but it is entirely insufficient..
If the cpu is spending a lot of time waiting on a fence, cpufreq will clock down so you spend less time waiting. And no problem has been solved. You absolutely need the concept of a missed deadline, and a timer doesn't give you that.
Ok then I probably don't understand the use case here.
What exactly do you try to solve?
Basically situations where you are ping-ponging between GPU and CPU.. for example if you are double buffering instead of triple buffering, and doing vblank sync'd pageflips. The GPU, without any extra signal, could get stuck at 30fps and a low gpu freq, because it ends up idle while waiting for an extra vblank cycle for the next back-buffer to become available. Whereas if it boosted up to a higher freq and stopped missing a vblank deadline, it would be less idle due to getting the next back-buffer sooner (due to not missing a vblank deadline).
BR, -R
Thanks, Christian.
BR, -R
Christian.
Am 19.05.21 um 20:38 schrieb Rob Clark:
From: Rob Clark robdclark@chromium.org
Add a way to hint to the fence signaler that a fence waiter has missed a deadline waiting on the fence.
In some cases, missing a vblank can result in lower gpu utilization, when really we want to go in the opposite direction and boost gpu freq. The boost callback gives some feedback to the fence signaler that we are missing deadlines, so it can take this into account in it's freq/ utilization calculations.
Signed-off-by: Rob Clark robdclark@chromium.org
include/linux/dma-fence.h | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+)
diff --git a/include/linux/dma-fence.h b/include/linux/dma-fence.h index 9f12efaaa93a..172702521acc 100644 --- a/include/linux/dma-fence.h +++ b/include/linux/dma-fence.h @@ -231,6 +231,17 @@ struct dma_fence_ops { signed long (*wait)(struct dma_fence *fence, bool intr, signed long timeout);
/*** @boost:** Optional callback, to indicate that a fence waiter missed a deadline.* This can serve as a signal that (if possible) whatever signals the* fence should boost it's clocks.** This can be called in any context that can call dma_fence_wait().*/void (*boost)(struct dma_fence *fence);/** * @release: *@@ -586,6 +597,21 @@ static inline signed long dma_fence_wait(struct dma_fence *fence, bool intr) return ret < 0 ? ret : 0; }
+/**
- dma_fence_boost - hint from waiter that it missed a deadline
- @fence: the fence that caused the missed deadline
- This function gives a hint from a fence waiter that a deadline was
- missed, so that the fence signaler can factor this in to device
- power state decisions
- */
+static inline void dma_fence_boost(struct dma_fence *fence) +{
if (fence->ops->boost)fence->ops->boost(fence);+}
- struct dma_fence *dma_fence_get_stub(void); u64 dma_fence_context_alloc(unsigned num);
Am 20.05.21 um 16:54 schrieb Rob Clark:
On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 7:11 AM Christian König christian.koenig@amd.com wrote:
Am 20.05.21 um 16:07 schrieb Rob Clark:
On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 11:47 PM Christian König christian.koenig@amd.com wrote:
Uff, that looks very hardware specific to me.
Howso? I'm not sure I agree.. and even if it was not useful for some hw, it should be useful for enough drivers (and harm no drivers), so I still think it is a good idea
The fallback plan is to go the i915 route and stop using atomic helpers and do the same thing inside the driver, but that doesn't help any of the cases where you have a separate kms and gpu driver.
Yeah, that's certainly not something we want.
As far as I can see you can also implement completely inside the backend by starting a timer on enable_signaling, don't you?
Not really.. I mean, the fact that something waited on a fence could be a useful input signal to gpu freq governor, but it is entirely insufficient..
If the cpu is spending a lot of time waiting on a fence, cpufreq will clock down so you spend less time waiting. And no problem has been solved. You absolutely need the concept of a missed deadline, and a timer doesn't give you that.
Ok then I probably don't understand the use case here.
What exactly do you try to solve?
Basically situations where you are ping-ponging between GPU and CPU.. for example if you are double buffering instead of triple buffering, and doing vblank sync'd pageflips. The GPU, without any extra signal, could get stuck at 30fps and a low gpu freq, because it ends up idle while waiting for an extra vblank cycle for the next back-buffer to become available. Whereas if it boosted up to a higher freq and stopped missing a vblank deadline, it would be less idle due to getting the next back-buffer sooner (due to not missing a vblank deadline).
Ok the is the why, but what about the how?
How does it help to have this boost callback and not just start a time on enable signaling and stop it when the signal arrives?
Regards, Christian.
BR, -R
Thanks, Christian.
BR, -R
Christian.
Am 19.05.21 um 20:38 schrieb Rob Clark:
From: Rob Clark robdclark@chromium.org
Add a way to hint to the fence signaler that a fence waiter has missed a deadline waiting on the fence.
In some cases, missing a vblank can result in lower gpu utilization, when really we want to go in the opposite direction and boost gpu freq. The boost callback gives some feedback to the fence signaler that we are missing deadlines, so it can take this into account in it's freq/ utilization calculations.
Signed-off-by: Rob Clark robdclark@chromium.org
include/linux/dma-fence.h | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+)diff --git a/include/linux/dma-fence.h b/include/linux/dma-fence.h index 9f12efaaa93a..172702521acc 100644 --- a/include/linux/dma-fence.h +++ b/include/linux/dma-fence.h @@ -231,6 +231,17 @@ struct dma_fence_ops { signed long (*wait)(struct dma_fence *fence, bool intr, signed long timeout);
/*** @boost:** Optional callback, to indicate that a fence waiter missed a deadline.* This can serve as a signal that (if possible) whatever signals the* fence should boost it's clocks.** This can be called in any context that can call dma_fence_wait().*/void (*boost)(struct dma_fence *fence);/** * @release: *@@ -586,6 +597,21 @@ static inline signed long dma_fence_wait(struct dma_fence *fence, bool intr) return ret < 0 ? ret : 0; }
+/**
- dma_fence_boost - hint from waiter that it missed a deadline
- @fence: the fence that caused the missed deadline
- This function gives a hint from a fence waiter that a deadline was
- missed, so that the fence signaler can factor this in to device
- power state decisions
- */
+static inline void dma_fence_boost(struct dma_fence *fence) +{
if (fence->ops->boost)fence->ops->boost(fence);+}
- struct dma_fence *dma_fence_get_stub(void); u64 dma_fence_context_alloc(unsigned num);
Linaro-mm-sig mailing list Linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-mm-sig
On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 06:01:39PM +0200, Christian König wrote:
Am 20.05.21 um 16:54 schrieb Rob Clark:
On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 7:11 AM Christian König christian.koenig@amd.com wrote:
Am 20.05.21 um 16:07 schrieb Rob Clark:
On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 11:47 PM Christian König christian.koenig@amd.com wrote:
Uff, that looks very hardware specific to me.
Howso? I'm not sure I agree.. and even if it was not useful for some hw, it should be useful for enough drivers (and harm no drivers), so I still think it is a good idea
The fallback plan is to go the i915 route and stop using atomic helpers and do the same thing inside the driver, but that doesn't help any of the cases where you have a separate kms and gpu driver.
Yeah, that's certainly not something we want.
As far as I can see you can also implement completely inside the backend by starting a timer on enable_signaling, don't you?
Not really.. I mean, the fact that something waited on a fence could be a useful input signal to gpu freq governor, but it is entirely insufficient..
If the cpu is spending a lot of time waiting on a fence, cpufreq will clock down so you spend less time waiting. And no problem has been solved. You absolutely need the concept of a missed deadline, and a timer doesn't give you that.
Ok then I probably don't understand the use case here.
What exactly do you try to solve?
Basically situations where you are ping-ponging between GPU and CPU.. for example if you are double buffering instead of triple buffering, and doing vblank sync'd pageflips. The GPU, without any extra signal, could get stuck at 30fps and a low gpu freq, because it ends up idle while waiting for an extra vblank cycle for the next back-buffer to become available. Whereas if it boosted up to a higher freq and stopped missing a vblank deadline, it would be less idle due to getting the next back-buffer sooner (due to not missing a vblank deadline).
Ok the is the why, but what about the how?
How does it help to have this boost callback and not just start a time on enable signaling and stop it when the signal arrives?
Because the render side (or drm/scheduler, if msm would use that) has no idea for which vblank a rendering actually is for.
So boosting right when you've missed your frame (not what Rob implements currently, but fixable) is the right semantics.
The other issue is that for cpu waits, we want to differentiate from fence waits that userspace does intentially (e.g. wait ioctl) and waits that random other things are doing within the kernel to keep track of progress.
For the former we know that userspace is stuck waiting for the gpu, and we probably want to boost. For the latter we most definitely do _not_ want to boost.
Otoh I do agree with you that the current api is a bit awkward, so perhaps we do need a dma_fence_userspace_wait wrapper which boosts automatically after a bit. And similarly perhaps a drm_vblank_dma_fence_wait, where you give it a vblank target, and if the fence isn't signalled by then, we kick it real hard.
But otherwise yes this is absolutely a thing that matters a ton. If you look at Matt Brost's scheduler rfc, there's also a line item in there about adding this kind of boosting to drm/scheduler. -Daniel
Regards, Christian.
BR, -R
Thanks, Christian.
BR, -R
Christian.
Am 19.05.21 um 20:38 schrieb Rob Clark:
From: Rob Clark robdclark@chromium.org
Add a way to hint to the fence signaler that a fence waiter has missed a deadline waiting on the fence.
In some cases, missing a vblank can result in lower gpu utilization, when really we want to go in the opposite direction and boost gpu freq. The boost callback gives some feedback to the fence signaler that we are missing deadlines, so it can take this into account in it's freq/ utilization calculations.
Signed-off-by: Rob Clark robdclark@chromium.org
include/linux/dma-fence.h | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+)diff --git a/include/linux/dma-fence.h b/include/linux/dma-fence.h index 9f12efaaa93a..172702521acc 100644 --- a/include/linux/dma-fence.h +++ b/include/linux/dma-fence.h @@ -231,6 +231,17 @@ struct dma_fence_ops { signed long (*wait)(struct dma_fence *fence, bool intr, signed long timeout);
/*** @boost:** Optional callback, to indicate that a fence waiter missed a deadline.* This can serve as a signal that (if possible) whatever signals the* fence should boost it's clocks.** This can be called in any context that can call dma_fence_wait().*/void (*boost)(struct dma_fence *fence);/** * @release: *@@ -586,6 +597,21 @@ static inline signed long dma_fence_wait(struct dma_fence *fence, bool intr) return ret < 0 ? ret : 0; }
+/**
- dma_fence_boost - hint from waiter that it missed a deadline
- @fence: the fence that caused the missed deadline
- This function gives a hint from a fence waiter that a deadline was
- missed, so that the fence signaler can factor this in to device
- power state decisions
- */
+static inline void dma_fence_boost(struct dma_fence *fence) +{
if (fence->ops->boost)fence->ops->boost(fence);+}
- struct dma_fence *dma_fence_get_stub(void); u64 dma_fence_context_alloc(unsigned num);
Linaro-mm-sig mailing list Linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-mm-sig
Am 20.05.21 um 18:34 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 06:01:39PM +0200, Christian König wrote:
Am 20.05.21 um 16:54 schrieb Rob Clark:
On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 7:11 AM Christian König christian.koenig@amd.com wrote:
Am 20.05.21 um 16:07 schrieb Rob Clark:
On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 11:47 PM Christian König christian.koenig@amd.com wrote:
Uff, that looks very hardware specific to me.
Howso? I'm not sure I agree.. and even if it was not useful for some hw, it should be useful for enough drivers (and harm no drivers), so I still think it is a good idea
The fallback plan is to go the i915 route and stop using atomic helpers and do the same thing inside the driver, but that doesn't help any of the cases where you have a separate kms and gpu driver.
Yeah, that's certainly not something we want.
As far as I can see you can also implement completely inside the backend by starting a timer on enable_signaling, don't you?
Not really.. I mean, the fact that something waited on a fence could be a useful input signal to gpu freq governor, but it is entirely insufficient..
If the cpu is spending a lot of time waiting on a fence, cpufreq will clock down so you spend less time waiting. And no problem has been solved. You absolutely need the concept of a missed deadline, and a timer doesn't give you that.
Ok then I probably don't understand the use case here.
What exactly do you try to solve?
Basically situations where you are ping-ponging between GPU and CPU.. for example if you are double buffering instead of triple buffering, and doing vblank sync'd pageflips. The GPU, without any extra signal, could get stuck at 30fps and a low gpu freq, because it ends up idle while waiting for an extra vblank cycle for the next back-buffer to become available. Whereas if it boosted up to a higher freq and stopped missing a vblank deadline, it would be less idle due to getting the next back-buffer sooner (due to not missing a vblank deadline).
Ok the is the why, but what about the how?
How does it help to have this boost callback and not just start a time on enable signaling and stop it when the signal arrives?
Because the render side (or drm/scheduler, if msm would use that) has no idea for which vblank a rendering actually is for.
AH! So we are basically telling the fence backend that we have just missed an event we waited for.
So what we want to know is how long the frontend wanted to wait instead of how long the backend took for rendering.
So boosting right when you've missed your frame (not what Rob implements currently, but fixable) is the right semantics.
The other issue is that for cpu waits, we want to differentiate from fence waits that userspace does intentially (e.g. wait ioctl) and waits that random other things are doing within the kernel to keep track of progress.
For the former we know that userspace is stuck waiting for the gpu, and we probably want to boost. For the latter we most definitely do _not_ want to boost.
Otoh I do agree with you that the current api is a bit awkward, so perhaps we do need a dma_fence_userspace_wait wrapper which boosts automatically after a bit. And similarly perhaps a drm_vblank_dma_fence_wait, where you give it a vblank target, and if the fence isn't signalled by then, we kick it real hard.
Yeah, something like an use case driven API would be nice to have.
For this particular case I suggest that we somehow extend the enable signaling callback.
But otherwise yes this is absolutely a thing that matters a ton. If you look at Matt Brost's scheduler rfc, there's also a line item in there about adding this kind of boosting to drm/scheduler.
BTW: I still can't see this in my inbox.
Do you have a link?
Christian.
-Daniel
Regards, Christian.
BR, -R
Thanks, Christian.
BR, -R
Christian.
Am 19.05.21 um 20:38 schrieb Rob Clark: > From: Rob Clark robdclark@chromium.org > > Add a way to hint to the fence signaler that a fence waiter has missed a > deadline waiting on the fence. > > In some cases, missing a vblank can result in lower gpu utilization, > when really we want to go in the opposite direction and boost gpu freq. > The boost callback gives some feedback to the fence signaler that we > are missing deadlines, so it can take this into account in it's freq/ > utilization calculations. > > Signed-off-by: Rob Clark robdclark@chromium.org > --- > include/linux/dma-fence.h | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/include/linux/dma-fence.h b/include/linux/dma-fence.h > index 9f12efaaa93a..172702521acc 100644 > --- a/include/linux/dma-fence.h > +++ b/include/linux/dma-fence.h > @@ -231,6 +231,17 @@ struct dma_fence_ops { > signed long (*wait)(struct dma_fence *fence, > bool intr, signed long timeout); > > + /** > + * @boost: > + * > + * Optional callback, to indicate that a fence waiter missed a deadline. > + * This can serve as a signal that (if possible) whatever signals the > + * fence should boost it's clocks. > + * > + * This can be called in any context that can call dma_fence_wait(). > + */ > + void (*boost)(struct dma_fence *fence); > + > /** > * @release: > * > @@ -586,6 +597,21 @@ static inline signed long dma_fence_wait(struct dma_fence *fence, bool intr) > return ret < 0 ? ret : 0; > } > > +/** > + * dma_fence_boost - hint from waiter that it missed a deadline > + * > + * @fence: the fence that caused the missed deadline > + * > + * This function gives a hint from a fence waiter that a deadline was > + * missed, so that the fence signaler can factor this in to device > + * power state decisions > + */ > +static inline void dma_fence_boost(struct dma_fence *fence) > +{ > + if (fence->ops->boost) > + fence->ops->boost(fence); > +} > + > struct dma_fence *dma_fence_get_stub(void); > u64 dma_fence_context_alloc(unsigned num); >
Linaro-mm-sig mailing list Linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.lina...
On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 6:41 PM Christian König christian.koenig@amd.com wrote:
Am 20.05.21 um 18:34 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 06:01:39PM +0200, Christian König wrote:
Am 20.05.21 um 16:54 schrieb Rob Clark:
On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 7:11 AM Christian König christian.koenig@amd.com wrote:
Am 20.05.21 um 16:07 schrieb Rob Clark:
On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 11:47 PM Christian König christian.koenig@amd.com wrote: > Uff, that looks very hardware specific to me. Howso? I'm not sure I agree.. and even if it was not useful for some hw, it should be useful for enough drivers (and harm no drivers), so I still think it is a good idea
The fallback plan is to go the i915 route and stop using atomic helpers and do the same thing inside the driver, but that doesn't help any of the cases where you have a separate kms and gpu driver.
Yeah, that's certainly not something we want.
> As far as I can see you can also implement completely inside the backend > by starting a timer on enable_signaling, don't you? Not really.. I mean, the fact that something waited on a fence could be a useful input signal to gpu freq governor, but it is entirely insufficient..
If the cpu is spending a lot of time waiting on a fence, cpufreq will clock down so you spend less time waiting. And no problem has been solved. You absolutely need the concept of a missed deadline, and a timer doesn't give you that.
Ok then I probably don't understand the use case here.
What exactly do you try to solve?
Basically situations where you are ping-ponging between GPU and CPU.. for example if you are double buffering instead of triple buffering, and doing vblank sync'd pageflips. The GPU, without any extra signal, could get stuck at 30fps and a low gpu freq, because it ends up idle while waiting for an extra vblank cycle for the next back-buffer to become available. Whereas if it boosted up to a higher freq and stopped missing a vblank deadline, it would be less idle due to getting the next back-buffer sooner (due to not missing a vblank deadline).
Ok the is the why, but what about the how?
How does it help to have this boost callback and not just start a time on enable signaling and stop it when the signal arrives?
Because the render side (or drm/scheduler, if msm would use that) has no idea for which vblank a rendering actually is for.
AH! So we are basically telling the fence backend that we have just missed an event we waited for.
So what we want to know is how long the frontend wanted to wait instead of how long the backend took for rendering.
tbh I'm not sure the timestamp matters at all. What we do in i915 is boost quite aggressively, and then let the usual clock tuning wittle it down if we overshot. Plus soom cool-down to prevent abuse/continuous boosting. I think we also differentiate between display boost and userspace waits.
On the display side we also wait until the vblank has passed we aimed for (atm always the next, we don't have target_frame support like amdgpu), to avoid boosting when there's no point.
So boosting right when you've missed your frame (not what Rob implements currently, but fixable) is the right semantics.
The other issue is that for cpu waits, we want to differentiate from fence waits that userspace does intentially (e.g. wait ioctl) and waits that random other things are doing within the kernel to keep track of progress.
For the former we know that userspace is stuck waiting for the gpu, and we probably want to boost. For the latter we most definitely do _not_ want to boost.
Otoh I do agree with you that the current api is a bit awkward, so perhaps we do need a dma_fence_userspace_wait wrapper which boosts automatically after a bit. And similarly perhaps a drm_vblank_dma_fence_wait, where you give it a vblank target, and if the fence isn't signalled by then, we kick it real hard.
Yeah, something like an use case driven API would be nice to have.
For this particular case I suggest that we somehow extend the enable signaling callback.
But otherwise yes this is absolutely a thing that matters a ton. If you look at Matt Brost's scheduler rfc, there's also a line item in there about adding this kind of boosting to drm/scheduler.
BTW: I still can't see this in my inbox.
You've replied already:
https://lore.kernel.org/dri-devel/20210518235830.133834-1-matthew.brost@inte...
It's just the big picture plan of what areas we're all trying to tackle with some why, so that everyone knows what's coming in the next half year at least. Probably longer until this is all sorted. I think Matt has some poc hacked-up pile, but nothing really to show. -Daniel
Do you have a link?
Christian.
-Daniel
Regards, Christian.
BR, -R
Thanks, Christian.
BR, -R
> Christian. > > Am 19.05.21 um 20:38 schrieb Rob Clark: >> From: Rob Clark robdclark@chromium.org >> >> Add a way to hint to the fence signaler that a fence waiter has missed a >> deadline waiting on the fence. >> >> In some cases, missing a vblank can result in lower gpu utilization, >> when really we want to go in the opposite direction and boost gpu freq. >> The boost callback gives some feedback to the fence signaler that we >> are missing deadlines, so it can take this into account in it's freq/ >> utilization calculations. >> >> Signed-off-by: Rob Clark robdclark@chromium.org >> --- >> include/linux/dma-fence.h | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/include/linux/dma-fence.h b/include/linux/dma-fence.h >> index 9f12efaaa93a..172702521acc 100644 >> --- a/include/linux/dma-fence.h >> +++ b/include/linux/dma-fence.h >> @@ -231,6 +231,17 @@ struct dma_fence_ops { >> signed long (*wait)(struct dma_fence *fence, >> bool intr, signed long timeout); >> >> + /** >> + * @boost: >> + * >> + * Optional callback, to indicate that a fence waiter missed a deadline. >> + * This can serve as a signal that (if possible) whatever signals the >> + * fence should boost it's clocks. >> + * >> + * This can be called in any context that can call dma_fence_wait(). >> + */ >> + void (*boost)(struct dma_fence *fence); >> + >> /** >> * @release: >> * >> @@ -586,6 +597,21 @@ static inline signed long dma_fence_wait(struct dma_fence *fence, bool intr) >> return ret < 0 ? ret : 0; >> } >> >> +/** >> + * dma_fence_boost - hint from waiter that it missed a deadline >> + * >> + * @fence: the fence that caused the missed deadline >> + * >> + * This function gives a hint from a fence waiter that a deadline was >> + * missed, so that the fence signaler can factor this in to device >> + * power state decisions >> + */ >> +static inline void dma_fence_boost(struct dma_fence *fence) >> +{ >> + if (fence->ops->boost) >> + fence->ops->boost(fence); >> +} >> + >> struct dma_fence *dma_fence_get_stub(void); >> u64 dma_fence_context_alloc(unsigned num); >>
Linaro-mm-sig mailing list Linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.lina...
Am 20.05.21 um 19:08 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
[SNIP]
AH! So we are basically telling the fence backend that we have just missed an event we waited for.
So what we want to know is how long the frontend wanted to wait instead of how long the backend took for rendering.
tbh I'm not sure the timestamp matters at all. What we do in i915 is boost quite aggressively, and then let the usual clock tuning wittle it down if we overshot. Plus soom cool-down to prevent abuse/continuous boosting. I think we also differentiate between display boost and userspace waits.
I was not thinking about time stamps here, but more like which information we need at which place.
On the display side we also wait until the vblank has passed we aimed for (atm always the next, we don't have target_frame support like amdgpu), to avoid boosting when there's no point.
So boosting right when you've missed your frame (not what Rob implements currently, but fixable) is the right semantics.
The other issue is that for cpu waits, we want to differentiate from fence waits that userspace does intentially (e.g. wait ioctl) and waits that random other things are doing within the kernel to keep track of progress.
For the former we know that userspace is stuck waiting for the gpu, and we probably want to boost. For the latter we most definitely do _not_ want to boost.
Otoh I do agree with you that the current api is a bit awkward, so perhaps we do need a dma_fence_userspace_wait wrapper which boosts automatically after a bit. And similarly perhaps a drm_vblank_dma_fence_wait, where you give it a vblank target, and if the fence isn't signalled by then, we kick it real hard.
Yeah, something like an use case driven API would be nice to have.
For this particular case I suggest that we somehow extend the enable signaling callback.
But otherwise yes this is absolutely a thing that matters a ton. If you look at Matt Brost's scheduler rfc, there's also a line item in there about adding this kind of boosting to drm/scheduler.
BTW: I still can't see this in my inbox.
You've replied already:
https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flore.kerne...
Yeah, but doesn't that also require some changes to the DRM scheduler?
I was expecting that this is a bit more than just two patches.
Christian.
It's just the big picture plan of what areas we're all trying to tackle with some why, so that everyone knows what's coming in the next half year at least. Probably longer until this is all sorted. I think Matt has some poc hacked-up pile, but nothing really to show. -Daniel
Do you have a link?
Christian.
-Daniel
Regards, Christian.
BR, -R
Thanks, Christian.
> BR, > -R > >> Christian. >> >> Am 19.05.21 um 20:38 schrieb Rob Clark: >>> From: Rob Clark robdclark@chromium.org >>> >>> Add a way to hint to the fence signaler that a fence waiter has missed a >>> deadline waiting on the fence. >>> >>> In some cases, missing a vblank can result in lower gpu utilization, >>> when really we want to go in the opposite direction and boost gpu freq. >>> The boost callback gives some feedback to the fence signaler that we >>> are missing deadlines, so it can take this into account in it's freq/ >>> utilization calculations. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Rob Clark robdclark@chromium.org >>> --- >>> include/linux/dma-fence.h | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/include/linux/dma-fence.h b/include/linux/dma-fence.h >>> index 9f12efaaa93a..172702521acc 100644 >>> --- a/include/linux/dma-fence.h >>> +++ b/include/linux/dma-fence.h >>> @@ -231,6 +231,17 @@ struct dma_fence_ops { >>> signed long (*wait)(struct dma_fence *fence, >>> bool intr, signed long timeout); >>> >>> + /** >>> + * @boost: >>> + * >>> + * Optional callback, to indicate that a fence waiter missed a deadline. >>> + * This can serve as a signal that (if possible) whatever signals the >>> + * fence should boost it's clocks. >>> + * >>> + * This can be called in any context that can call dma_fence_wait(). >>> + */ >>> + void (*boost)(struct dma_fence *fence); >>> + >>> /** >>> * @release: >>> * >>> @@ -586,6 +597,21 @@ static inline signed long dma_fence_wait(struct dma_fence *fence, bool intr) >>> return ret < 0 ? ret : 0; >>> } >>> >>> +/** >>> + * dma_fence_boost - hint from waiter that it missed a deadline >>> + * >>> + * @fence: the fence that caused the missed deadline >>> + * >>> + * This function gives a hint from a fence waiter that a deadline was >>> + * missed, so that the fence signaler can factor this in to device >>> + * power state decisions >>> + */ >>> +static inline void dma_fence_boost(struct dma_fence *fence) >>> +{ >>> + if (fence->ops->boost) >>> + fence->ops->boost(fence); >>> +} >>> + >>> struct dma_fence *dma_fence_get_stub(void); >>> u64 dma_fence_context_alloc(unsigned num); >>>
Linaro-mm-sig mailing list Linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.lina...
On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 09:43:59AM +0200, Christian König wrote:
Am 20.05.21 um 19:08 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
[SNIP]
AH! So we are basically telling the fence backend that we have just missed an event we waited for.
So what we want to know is how long the frontend wanted to wait instead of how long the backend took for rendering.
tbh I'm not sure the timestamp matters at all. What we do in i915 is boost quite aggressively, and then let the usual clock tuning wittle it down if we overshot. Plus soom cool-down to prevent abuse/continuous boosting. I think we also differentiate between display boost and userspace waits.
I was not thinking about time stamps here, but more like which information we need at which place.
On the display side we also wait until the vblank has passed we aimed for (atm always the next, we don't have target_frame support like amdgpu), to avoid boosting when there's no point.
So boosting right when you've missed your frame (not what Rob implements currently, but fixable) is the right semantics.
The other issue is that for cpu waits, we want to differentiate from fence waits that userspace does intentially (e.g. wait ioctl) and waits that random other things are doing within the kernel to keep track of progress.
For the former we know that userspace is stuck waiting for the gpu, and we probably want to boost. For the latter we most definitely do _not_ want to boost.
Otoh I do agree with you that the current api is a bit awkward, so perhaps we do need a dma_fence_userspace_wait wrapper which boosts automatically after a bit. And similarly perhaps a drm_vblank_dma_fence_wait, where you give it a vblank target, and if the fence isn't signalled by then, we kick it real hard.
Yeah, something like an use case driven API would be nice to have.
For this particular case I suggest that we somehow extend the enable signaling callback.
But otherwise yes this is absolutely a thing that matters a ton. If you look at Matt Brost's scheduler rfc, there's also a line item in there about adding this kind of boosting to drm/scheduler.
BTW: I still can't see this in my inbox.
You've replied already:
https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flore.kerne...
Yeah, but doesn't that also require some changes to the DRM scheduler?
I was expecting that this is a bit more than just two patches.
It's just the rfc document, per the new rfc process:
https://dri.freedesktop.org/docs/drm/gpu/rfc/
It's rather obviously not any piece of code in there, but just meant to check rough direction before we go rewrite the entire i915 execbuf frontend. -Daniel
Christian.
It's just the big picture plan of what areas we're all trying to tackle with some why, so that everyone knows what's coming in the next half year at least. Probably longer until this is all sorted. I think Matt has some poc hacked-up pile, but nothing really to show. -Daniel
Do you have a link?
Christian.
-Daniel
Regards, Christian.
BR, -R
> Thanks, > Christian. > > > BR, > > -R > > > > > Christian. > > > > > > Am 19.05.21 um 20:38 schrieb Rob Clark: > > > > From: Rob Clark robdclark@chromium.org > > > > > > > > Add a way to hint to the fence signaler that a fence waiter has missed a > > > > deadline waiting on the fence. > > > > > > > > In some cases, missing a vblank can result in lower gpu utilization, > > > > when really we want to go in the opposite direction and boost gpu freq. > > > > The boost callback gives some feedback to the fence signaler that we > > > > are missing deadlines, so it can take this into account in it's freq/ > > > > utilization calculations. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Rob Clark robdclark@chromium.org > > > > --- > > > > include/linux/dma-fence.h | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/dma-fence.h b/include/linux/dma-fence.h > > > > index 9f12efaaa93a..172702521acc 100644 > > > > --- a/include/linux/dma-fence.h > > > > +++ b/include/linux/dma-fence.h > > > > @@ -231,6 +231,17 @@ struct dma_fence_ops { > > > > signed long (*wait)(struct dma_fence *fence, > > > > bool intr, signed long timeout); > > > > > > > > + /** > > > > + * @boost: > > > > + * > > > > + * Optional callback, to indicate that a fence waiter missed a deadline. > > > > + * This can serve as a signal that (if possible) whatever signals the > > > > + * fence should boost it's clocks. > > > > + * > > > > + * This can be called in any context that can call dma_fence_wait(). > > > > + */ > > > > + void (*boost)(struct dma_fence *fence); > > > > + > > > > /** > > > > * @release: > > > > * > > > > @@ -586,6 +597,21 @@ static inline signed long dma_fence_wait(struct dma_fence *fence, bool intr) > > > > return ret < 0 ? ret : 0; > > > > } > > > > > > > > +/** > > > > + * dma_fence_boost - hint from waiter that it missed a deadline > > > > + * > > > > + * @fence: the fence that caused the missed deadline > > > > + * > > > > + * This function gives a hint from a fence waiter that a deadline was > > > > + * missed, so that the fence signaler can factor this in to device > > > > + * power state decisions > > > > + */ > > > > +static inline void dma_fence_boost(struct dma_fence *fence) > > > > +{ > > > > + if (fence->ops->boost) > > > > + fence->ops->boost(fence); > > > > +} > > > > + > > > > struct dma_fence *dma_fence_get_stub(void); > > > > u64 dma_fence_context_alloc(unsigned num); > > > > _______________________________________________ Linaro-mm-sig mailing list Linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.lina...
On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 4:03 PM Rob Clark robdclark@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 11:47 PM Christian König christian.koenig@amd.com wrote:
Uff, that looks very hardware specific to me.
Howso? I'm not sure I agree.. and even if it was not useful for some hw, it should be useful for enough drivers (and harm no drivers), so I still think it is a good idea
The fallback plan is to go the i915 route and stop using atomic helpers and do the same thing inside the driver, but that doesn't help any of the cases where you have a separate kms and gpu driver.
Don't, because the i915 plan is to actually move towards drm/scheduler and atomic helpers.
As far as I can see you can also implement completely inside the backend by starting a timer on enable_signaling, don't you?
Not really.. I mean, the fact that something waited on a fence could be a useful input signal to gpu freq governor, but it is entirely insufficient..
If the cpu is spending a lot of time waiting on a fence, cpufreq will clock down so you spend less time waiting. And no problem has been solved. You absolutely need the concept of a missed deadline, and a timer doesn't give you that.
Yup agreed.
Adding Matt Brost, since he's planning all this boostback work. -Daniel
BR, -R
Christian.
Am 19.05.21 um 20:38 schrieb Rob Clark:
From: Rob Clark robdclark@chromium.org
Add a way to hint to the fence signaler that a fence waiter has missed a deadline waiting on the fence.
In some cases, missing a vblank can result in lower gpu utilization, when really we want to go in the opposite direction and boost gpu freq. The boost callback gives some feedback to the fence signaler that we are missing deadlines, so it can take this into account in it's freq/ utilization calculations.
Signed-off-by: Rob Clark robdclark@chromium.org
include/linux/dma-fence.h | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+)
diff --git a/include/linux/dma-fence.h b/include/linux/dma-fence.h index 9f12efaaa93a..172702521acc 100644 --- a/include/linux/dma-fence.h +++ b/include/linux/dma-fence.h @@ -231,6 +231,17 @@ struct dma_fence_ops { signed long (*wait)(struct dma_fence *fence, bool intr, signed long timeout);
/*** @boost:** Optional callback, to indicate that a fence waiter missed a deadline.* This can serve as a signal that (if possible) whatever signals the* fence should boost it's clocks.** This can be called in any context that can call dma_fence_wait().*/void (*boost)(struct dma_fence *fence);/** * @release: *@@ -586,6 +597,21 @@ static inline signed long dma_fence_wait(struct dma_fence *fence, bool intr) return ret < 0 ? ret : 0; }
+/**
- dma_fence_boost - hint from waiter that it missed a deadline
- @fence: the fence that caused the missed deadline
- This function gives a hint from a fence waiter that a deadline was
- missed, so that the fence signaler can factor this in to device
- power state decisions
- */
+static inline void dma_fence_boost(struct dma_fence *fence) +{
if (fence->ops->boost)fence->ops->boost(fence);+}
- struct dma_fence *dma_fence_get_stub(void); u64 dma_fence_context_alloc(unsigned num);
From: Rob Clark robdclark@chromium.org
Signed-off-by: Rob Clark robdclark@chromium.org --- drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_helper.c | 11 +++++++++++ 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_helper.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_helper.c index 560aaecba31b..fe10fc2e7f86 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_helper.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_helper.c @@ -1435,11 +1435,15 @@ int drm_atomic_helper_wait_for_fences(struct drm_device *dev, int i, ret;
for_each_new_plane_in_state(state, plane, new_plane_state, i) { + u64 vblank_count; + if (!new_plane_state->fence) continue;
WARN_ON(!new_plane_state->fb);
+ vblank_count = drm_crtc_vblank_count(new_plane_state->crtc); + /* * If waiting for fences pre-swap (ie: nonblock), userspace can * still interrupt the operation. Instead of blocking until the @@ -1449,6 +1453,13 @@ int drm_atomic_helper_wait_for_fences(struct drm_device *dev, if (ret) return ret;
+ /* + * Check if we've missed a vblank while waiting, and if we have + * signal the fence that it's signaler should be boosted + */ + if (vblank_count != drm_crtc_vblank_count(new_plane_state->crtc)) + dma_fence_boost(new_plane_state->fence); + dma_fence_put(new_plane_state->fence); new_plane_state->fence = NULL; }
On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 11:38:53AM -0700, Rob Clark wrote:
From: Rob Clark robdclark@chromium.org
Signed-off-by: Rob Clark robdclark@chromium.org
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_helper.c | 11 +++++++++++ 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_helper.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_helper.c index 560aaecba31b..fe10fc2e7f86 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_helper.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_helper.c @@ -1435,11 +1435,15 @@ int drm_atomic_helper_wait_for_fences(struct drm_device *dev, int i, ret;
for_each_new_plane_in_state(state, plane, new_plane_state, i) {
u64 vblank_count;if (!new_plane_state->fence) continue;
WARN_ON(!new_plane_state->fb);
vblank_count = drm_crtc_vblank_count(new_plane_state->crtc);/*
- If waiting for fences pre-swap (ie: nonblock), userspace can
- still interrupt the operation. Instead of blocking until the
@@ -1449,6 +1453,13 @@ int drm_atomic_helper_wait_for_fences(struct drm_device *dev, if (ret) return ret;
/** Check if we've missed a vblank while waiting, and if we have* signal the fence that it's signaler should be boosted*/if (vblank_count != drm_crtc_vblank_count(new_plane_state->crtc))dma_fence_boost(new_plane_state->fence);
I think we should do a lot better here: - maybe only bother doing this for single-crtc updates, and only if modeset isn't set. No one else cares about latency.
- We should boost _right_ when we've missed the frame, so I think we should have a _timeout wait here that guesstimates when the vblank is over (might need to throw in a vblank wait if we missed) and then boost immediately. Not wait a bunch of frames (worst case) until we finally decide to boost.
Otherwise I really like this, I think it's about the only real reason i915 isn't using atomic helpers.
Also adding Matt B for this topic. -Daniel
- dma_fence_put(new_plane_state->fence); new_plane_state->fence = NULL; }
-- 2.30.2
On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 9:29 AM Daniel Vetter daniel@ffwll.ch wrote:
On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 11:38:53AM -0700, Rob Clark wrote:
From: Rob Clark robdclark@chromium.org
Signed-off-by: Rob Clark robdclark@chromium.org
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_helper.c | 11 +++++++++++ 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_helper.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_helper.c index 560aaecba31b..fe10fc2e7f86 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_helper.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_helper.c @@ -1435,11 +1435,15 @@ int drm_atomic_helper_wait_for_fences(struct drm_device *dev, int i, ret;
for_each_new_plane_in_state(state, plane, new_plane_state, i) {
u64 vblank_count;if (!new_plane_state->fence) continue; WARN_ON(!new_plane_state->fb);vblank_count = drm_crtc_vblank_count(new_plane_state->crtc);/* * If waiting for fences pre-swap (ie: nonblock), userspace can * still interrupt the operation. Instead of blocking until the@@ -1449,6 +1453,13 @@ int drm_atomic_helper_wait_for_fences(struct drm_device *dev, if (ret) return ret;
/** Check if we've missed a vblank while waiting, and if we have* signal the fence that it's signaler should be boosted*/if (vblank_count != drm_crtc_vblank_count(new_plane_state->crtc))dma_fence_boost(new_plane_state->fence);I think we should do a lot better here:
maybe only bother doing this for single-crtc updates, and only if modeset isn't set. No one else cares about latency.
We should boost _right_ when we've missed the frame, so I think we should have a _timeout wait here that guesstimates when the vblank is over (might need to throw in a vblank wait if we missed) and then boost immediately. Not wait a bunch of frames (worst case) until we finally decide to boost.
I was thinking about this a bit more.. How about rather than calling some fence->op->boost() type thing when we are about to miss a vblank (IMO that is also already too late), we do something more like fence->ops->set_deadline() before we even wait?
It's probably a bit impossible for a gpu driver to really predict how long some rendering will take, but other cases like video decoder are somewhat more predictable.. the fence provider could predict given the remaining time until the deadline what clk rates are required to get you there.
BR, -R
Otherwise I really like this, I think it's about the only real reason i915 isn't using atomic helpers.
Also adding Matt B for this topic. -Daniel
dma_fence_put(new_plane_state->fence); new_plane_state->fence = NULL; }-- 2.30.2
-- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch
On Sun, May 30, 2021 at 07:33:57AM -0700, Rob Clark wrote:
On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 9:29 AM Daniel Vetter daniel@ffwll.ch wrote:
On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 11:38:53AM -0700, Rob Clark wrote:
From: Rob Clark robdclark@chromium.org
Signed-off-by: Rob Clark robdclark@chromium.org
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_helper.c | 11 +++++++++++ 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_helper.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_helper.c index 560aaecba31b..fe10fc2e7f86 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_helper.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_helper.c @@ -1435,11 +1435,15 @@ int drm_atomic_helper_wait_for_fences(struct drm_device *dev, int i, ret;
for_each_new_plane_in_state(state, plane, new_plane_state, i) {
u64 vblank_count;if (!new_plane_state->fence) continue; WARN_ON(!new_plane_state->fb);vblank_count = drm_crtc_vblank_count(new_plane_state->crtc);/* * If waiting for fences pre-swap (ie: nonblock), userspace can * still interrupt the operation. Instead of blocking until the@@ -1449,6 +1453,13 @@ int drm_atomic_helper_wait_for_fences(struct drm_device *dev, if (ret) return ret;
/** Check if we've missed a vblank while waiting, and if we have* signal the fence that it's signaler should be boosted*/if (vblank_count != drm_crtc_vblank_count(new_plane_state->crtc))dma_fence_boost(new_plane_state->fence);I think we should do a lot better here:
maybe only bother doing this for single-crtc updates, and only if modeset isn't set. No one else cares about latency.
We should boost _right_ when we've missed the frame, so I think we should have a _timeout wait here that guesstimates when the vblank is over (might need to throw in a vblank wait if we missed) and then boost immediately. Not wait a bunch of frames (worst case) until we finally decide to boost.
I was thinking about this a bit more.. How about rather than calling some fence->op->boost() type thing when we are about to miss a vblank (IMO that is also already too late), we do something more like fence->ops->set_deadline() before we even wait?
Hm yeah that sounds like a clean idea.
Even more, why not add the deadline/waiter information to the callback we're adding? That way drivers can inspect it whenever they feel like and don't have to duplicate the tracking. And it's probably easier to tune/adjust to the myriads of use-cases (flip target miss, userspace wait, wakeup boost maybe too ...).
I like this direction a lot more than what we discussed with post-miss hints thus far.
It's probably a bit impossible for a gpu driver to really predict how long some rendering will take, but other cases like video decoder are somewhat more predictable.. the fence provider could predict given the remaining time until the deadline what clk rates are required to get you there.
Well if we do have a deadline the driver can note that in its scheduler and arm a driver to kick the clocks. Or maybe use past history to do this upfront. -Daniel
BR, -R
Otherwise I really like this, I think it's about the only real reason i915 isn't using atomic helpers.
Also adding Matt B for this topic. -Daniel
dma_fence_put(new_plane_state->fence); new_plane_state->fence = NULL; }-- 2.30.2
-- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch
On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 7:18 AM Daniel Vetter daniel@ffwll.ch wrote:
On Sun, May 30, 2021 at 07:33:57AM -0700, Rob Clark wrote:
On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 9:29 AM Daniel Vetter daniel@ffwll.ch wrote:
On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 11:38:53AM -0700, Rob Clark wrote:
From: Rob Clark robdclark@chromium.org
Signed-off-by: Rob Clark robdclark@chromium.org
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_helper.c | 11 +++++++++++ 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_helper.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_helper.c index 560aaecba31b..fe10fc2e7f86 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_helper.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_helper.c @@ -1435,11 +1435,15 @@ int drm_atomic_helper_wait_for_fences(struct drm_device *dev, int i, ret;
for_each_new_plane_in_state(state, plane, new_plane_state, i) {
u64 vblank_count;if (!new_plane_state->fence) continue; WARN_ON(!new_plane_state->fb);vblank_count = drm_crtc_vblank_count(new_plane_state->crtc);/* * If waiting for fences pre-swap (ie: nonblock), userspace can * still interrupt the operation. Instead of blocking until the@@ -1449,6 +1453,13 @@ int drm_atomic_helper_wait_for_fences(struct drm_device *dev, if (ret) return ret;
/** Check if we've missed a vblank while waiting, and if we have* signal the fence that it's signaler should be boosted*/if (vblank_count != drm_crtc_vblank_count(new_plane_state->crtc))dma_fence_boost(new_plane_state->fence);I think we should do a lot better here:
maybe only bother doing this for single-crtc updates, and only if modeset isn't set. No one else cares about latency.
We should boost _right_ when we've missed the frame, so I think we should have a _timeout wait here that guesstimates when the vblank is over (might need to throw in a vblank wait if we missed) and then boost immediately. Not wait a bunch of frames (worst case) until we finally decide to boost.
I was thinking about this a bit more.. How about rather than calling some fence->op->boost() type thing when we are about to miss a vblank (IMO that is also already too late), we do something more like fence->ops->set_deadline() before we even wait?
Hm yeah that sounds like a clean idea.
Even more, why not add the deadline/waiter information to the callback we're adding? That way drivers can inspect it whenever they feel like and don't have to duplicate the tracking. And it's probably easier to tune/adjust to the myriads of use-cases (flip target miss, userspace wait, wakeup boost maybe too ...).
You mean, enumerate the types of deadline?
For userspace waits, we might have a timeout, but not really (currently) any more information than that? The vblank deadline is the only type of deadline that seems pretty clear to me.
I suppose we could do something like:
dma_fence_set_deadline(fence, &(struct dma_fence_deadline){ .type = DMA_FENCE_DEADLINE_VBLANK, .time = next_vblank_ktime, });
to make it a bit more extensible to add more deadline types or additional optional information
BR, -R
I like this direction a lot more than what we discussed with post-miss hints thus far.
It's probably a bit impossible for a gpu driver to really predict how long some rendering will take, but other cases like video decoder are somewhat more predictable.. the fence provider could predict given the remaining time until the deadline what clk rates are required to get you there.
Well if we do have a deadline the driver can note that in its scheduler and arm a driver to kick the clocks. Or maybe use past history to do this upfront. -Daniel
BR, -R
Otherwise I really like this, I think it's about the only real reason i915 isn't using atomic helpers.
Also adding Matt B for this topic. -Daniel
dma_fence_put(new_plane_state->fence); new_plane_state->fence = NULL; }-- 2.30.2
-- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch
-- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch
On Tue, Jun 01, 2021 at 08:46:14AM -0700, Rob Clark wrote:
On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 7:18 AM Daniel Vetter daniel@ffwll.ch wrote:
On Sun, May 30, 2021 at 07:33:57AM -0700, Rob Clark wrote:
On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 9:29 AM Daniel Vetter daniel@ffwll.ch wrote:
On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 11:38:53AM -0700, Rob Clark wrote:
From: Rob Clark robdclark@chromium.org
Signed-off-by: Rob Clark robdclark@chromium.org
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_helper.c | 11 +++++++++++ 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_helper.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_helper.c index 560aaecba31b..fe10fc2e7f86 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_helper.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_helper.c @@ -1435,11 +1435,15 @@ int drm_atomic_helper_wait_for_fences(struct drm_device *dev, int i, ret;
for_each_new_plane_in_state(state, plane, new_plane_state, i) {
u64 vblank_count;if (!new_plane_state->fence) continue; WARN_ON(!new_plane_state->fb);vblank_count = drm_crtc_vblank_count(new_plane_state->crtc);/* * If waiting for fences pre-swap (ie: nonblock), userspace can * still interrupt the operation. Instead of blocking until the@@ -1449,6 +1453,13 @@ int drm_atomic_helper_wait_for_fences(struct drm_device *dev, if (ret) return ret;
/** Check if we've missed a vblank while waiting, and if we have* signal the fence that it's signaler should be boosted*/if (vblank_count != drm_crtc_vblank_count(new_plane_state->crtc))dma_fence_boost(new_plane_state->fence);I think we should do a lot better here:
maybe only bother doing this for single-crtc updates, and only if modeset isn't set. No one else cares about latency.
We should boost _right_ when we've missed the frame, so I think we should have a _timeout wait here that guesstimates when the vblank is over (might need to throw in a vblank wait if we missed) and then boost immediately. Not wait a bunch of frames (worst case) until we finally decide to boost.
I was thinking about this a bit more.. How about rather than calling some fence->op->boost() type thing when we are about to miss a vblank (IMO that is also already too late), we do something more like fence->ops->set_deadline() before we even wait?
Hm yeah that sounds like a clean idea.
Even more, why not add the deadline/waiter information to the callback we're adding? That way drivers can inspect it whenever they feel like and don't have to duplicate the tracking. And it's probably easier to tune/adjust to the myriads of use-cases (flip target miss, userspace wait, wakeup boost maybe too ...).
You mean, enumerate the types of deadline?
For userspace waits, we might have a timeout, but not really (currently) any more information than that? The vblank deadline is the only type of deadline that seems pretty clear to me.
I suppose we could do something like:
dma_fence_set_deadline(fence, &(struct dma_fence_deadline){ .type = DMA_FENCE_DEADLINE_VBLANK, .time = next_vblank_ktime, });
to make it a bit more extensible to add more deadline types or additional optional information
Nah not enumerate the types of deadlines, but the types of waits. Some of which might have a deadline (like page flip), some wont (like userspace waiting or poll() on a dma-fd or whatever).
What I had in mind is roughly
diff --git a/include/linux/dma-fence.h b/include/linux/dma-fence.h index 6ffb4b2c6371..e7c239145273 100644 --- a/include/linux/dma-fence.h +++ b/include/linux/dma-fence.h @@ -116,6 +116,8 @@ typedef void (*dma_fence_func_t)(struct dma_fence *fence, struct dma_fence_cb { struct list_head node; dma_fence_func_t func; + enume dma_fence_wait_type wait_type; + struct ktime deadline; /* fixme how do we indicate no deadline? */ };
/**
With that waiters, and irrespective of whether they use dma_fence_wait or have something else like the dma-buf fd poll stuff, can indicate to the driver what kind of wait with what kind of deadline this is.
Maybe we should make this a sub-struct, so that it can also be passed to dma_fence_wait(). -Daniel
BR, -R
I like this direction a lot more than what we discussed with post-miss hints thus far.
It's probably a bit impossible for a gpu driver to really predict how long some rendering will take, but other cases like video decoder are somewhat more predictable.. the fence provider could predict given the remaining time until the deadline what clk rates are required to get you there.
Well if we do have a deadline the driver can note that in its scheduler and arm a driver to kick the clocks. Or maybe use past history to do this upfront. -Daniel
BR, -R
Otherwise I really like this, I think it's about the only real reason i915 isn't using atomic helpers.
Also adding Matt B for this topic. -Daniel
dma_fence_put(new_plane_state->fence); new_plane_state->fence = NULL; }-- 2.30.2
-- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch
-- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch
From: Rob Clark robdclark@chromium.org
Note, at this point I haven't given a lot of consideration into how much we should boost, and for how long. And perhaps we should only boost at less than 50% utilization? At this point, this is only an example of dma_fence_boost() implementation.
Signed-off-by: Rob Clark robdclark@chromium.org --- drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_fence.c | 10 ++++++++++ drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_gpu.c | 13 +++++++++++++ drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_gpu.h | 2 ++ 3 files changed, 25 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_fence.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_fence.c index cd59a5918038..e58895603726 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_fence.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_fence.c @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@
#include "msm_drv.h" #include "msm_fence.h" +#include "msm_gpu.h"
struct msm_fence_context * @@ -114,10 +115,19 @@ static bool msm_fence_signaled(struct dma_fence *fence) return fence_completed(f->fctx, f->base.seqno); }
+static void msm_fence_boost(struct dma_fence *fence) +{ + struct msm_fence *f = to_msm_fence(fence); + struct msm_drm_private *priv = f->fctx->dev->dev_private; + + msm_gpu_boost(priv->gpu); +} + static const struct dma_fence_ops msm_fence_ops = { .get_driver_name = msm_fence_get_driver_name, .get_timeline_name = msm_fence_get_timeline_name, .signaled = msm_fence_signaled, + .boost = msm_fence_boost, };
struct dma_fence * diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_gpu.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_gpu.c index 9dd1c58430ab..c90b79116500 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_gpu.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_gpu.c @@ -62,6 +62,10 @@ static int msm_devfreq_get_dev_status(struct device *dev, status->total_time = ktime_us_delta(time, gpu->devfreq.time); gpu->devfreq.time = time;
+ if (atomic_dec_if_positive(&gpu->devfreq.boost) >= 0) { + status->busy_time = status->total_time; + } + return 0; }
@@ -84,6 +88,15 @@ static struct devfreq_dev_profile msm_devfreq_profile = { .get_cur_freq = msm_devfreq_get_cur_freq, };
+void msm_gpu_boost(struct msm_gpu *gpu) +{ + if (!gpu->funcs->gpu_busy) + return; + + /* Add three devfreq polling intervals worth of boost: */ + atomic_add(3, &gpu->devfreq.boost); +} + static void msm_devfreq_init(struct msm_gpu *gpu) { /* We need target support to do devfreq */ diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_gpu.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_gpu.h index 18baf935e143..7a082a12d98f 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_gpu.h +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_gpu.h @@ -150,6 +150,7 @@ struct msm_gpu { struct devfreq *devfreq; u64 busy_cycles; ktime_t time; + atomic_t boost; } devfreq;
uint32_t suspend_count; @@ -295,6 +296,7 @@ static inline void gpu_write64(struct msm_gpu *gpu, u32 lo, u32 hi, u64 val) int msm_gpu_pm_suspend(struct msm_gpu *gpu); int msm_gpu_pm_resume(struct msm_gpu *gpu); void msm_gpu_resume_devfreq(struct msm_gpu *gpu); +void msm_gpu_boost(struct msm_gpu *gpu);
int msm_gpu_hw_init(struct msm_gpu *gpu);
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
-
Christian König -
Christian König -
Daniel Vetter -
Rob Clark