On 14/12/2020 20:59, Chris Wilson wrote:
Refactor the allocation such that we utilise just enough memory pressure to invoke the shrinker, and just enough processes to spread across the CPUs and contend on the shrinker. v2: Reduce over-allocation from mem_size/2 to mem_size/8, and 9 processes per cpu. Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk> Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursu...@intel.com> --- tests/i915/gem_shrink.c | 11 ++++++----- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/tests/i915/gem_shrink.c b/tests/i915/gem_shrink.c index 023db8c56..6413d25f5 100644 --- a/tests/i915/gem_shrink.c +++ b/tests/i915/gem_shrink.c @@ -426,6 +426,7 @@ igt_main int num_processes = 0;igt_fixture {+ const int ncpus = sysconf(_SC_NPROCESSORS_ONLN); uint64_t mem_size = intel_get_total_ram_mb(); int fd;@@ -434,16 +435,16 @@ igt_main /** Spawn enough processes to use all memory, but each only - * uses half the available mappable aperture ~128MiB. + * uses half of the available per-cpu memory. * Individually the processes would be ok, but en masse * we expect the shrinker to start purging objects, * and possibly fail. */ - alloc_size = gem_mappable_aperture_size(fd) / 2; - num_processes = 1 + (mem_size / (alloc_size >> 20)); + alloc_size = (mem_size + ncpus - 1) / ncpus / 8; + num_processes = ncpus + (mem_size / alloc_size);- igt_info("Using %d processes and %'lluMiB per process\n",- num_processes, (long long)(alloc_size >> 20)); + igt_info("Using %d processes and %'"PRIu64"MiB per process\n", + num_processes, alloc_size);intel_require_memory(num_processes, alloc_size,CHECK_SWAP | CHECK_RAM);
For some reason I still find the calculation convoluted but okay. Reviewed-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursu...@intel.com> Regards, Tvrtko _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
