Quoting Mika Kuoppala (2020-04-21 15:00:08) > Chris Wilson <[email protected]> writes: > > > If we detect that the RPS end points do not scale perfectly, take the > > time to measure all the in between values as well. We are aborting the > > test, so we might as well spend the available time gathering critical > > debug information instead. > > > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <[email protected]> > > Cc: Mika Kuoppala <[email protected]> > > --- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/selftest_rps.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 36 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/selftest_rps.c > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/selftest_rps.c > > index e0a791eac752..f8c416ab8539 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/selftest_rps.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/selftest_rps.c > > @@ -484,11 +484,29 @@ int live_rps_frequency_cs(void *arg) > > if (!scaled_within(max.freq * min.count, > > min.freq * max.count, > > 2, 3)) { > > + int f; > > + > > pr_err("%s: CS did not scale with frequency! scaled > > min:%llu, max:%llu\n", > > engine->name, > > max.freq * min.count, > > min.freq * max.count); > > show_pcu_config(rps); > > + > > + for (f = min.freq + 1; f <= rps->max_freq; f++) { > > + int act = f; > > + u64 count; > > + > > + count = measure_cs_frequency_at(rps, engine, > > &act); > > + if (act < f) > > + break; > > + > > No gripes but in here I ponder would you like to break after the info.
It just means we've repeated ourselves. So meh, it could be useful it could be noise. This is just extra info and interesting point is the curve, so it's not really critical if we skip a repeated line. Or so I believe. -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
