Re: [Intel-gfx] [igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t 2/4] lib: Make SLPC helper function per GT
On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 10:07:26 -0700, Dixit, Ashutosh wrote:
>
> On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 09:55:14 -0700, Dixit, Ashutosh wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 23 Apr 2023 13:16:44 -0700, Belgaumkar, Vinay wrote:
> > >
> >
> > Hi Vinay,
> >
> > > On 4/14/2023 1:25 PM, Dixit, Ashutosh wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 14 Apr 2023 12:16:37 -0700, Vinay Belgaumkar wrote:
> > > > Hi Vinay,
> > > >
> > > >> Use default of 0 where GT id is not being used.
> > > >>
> > > >> v2: Add a helper for GT 0 (Ashutosh)
> > > >>
> > > >> Signed-off-by: Vinay Belgaumkar
> > > >> ---
> > > >> lib/igt_pm.c | 36 ++--
> > > >> lib/igt_pm.h | 3 ++-
> > > >> 2 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> > > >>
> > > >> diff --git a/lib/igt_pm.c b/lib/igt_pm.c
> > > >> index 704acf7d..8a30bb3b 100644
> > > >> --- a/lib/igt_pm.c
> > > >> +++ b/lib/igt_pm.c
> > > >> @@ -1329,21 +1329,37 @@ void igt_pm_print_pci_card_runtime_status(void)
> > > >>}
> > > >> }
> > > >>
> > > >> -bool i915_is_slpc_enabled(int fd)
> > > >> +/**
> > > >> + * i915_is_slpc_enabled_gt:
> > > >> + * @drm_fd: DRM file descriptor
> > > >> + * @gt: GT id
> > > >> + * Check if SLPC is enabled on a GT
> > > >> + */
> > > >> +bool i915_is_slpc_enabled_gt(int drm_fd, int gt)
> > > >> {
> > > >> - int debugfs_fd = igt_debugfs_dir(fd);
> > > >> - char buf[4096] = {};
> > > >> - int len;
> > > >> + int debugfs_fd;
> > > >> + char buf[256] = {};
> > > > Shouldn't this be 4096 as before?
> > > >
> > > >> - igt_require(debugfs_fd != -1);
> > > >> + debugfs_fd = igt_debugfs_gt_open(drm_fd, gt,
> > > >> "uc/guc_slpc_info", O_RDONLY);
> > > >> +
> > > >> + /* if guc_slpc_info not present then return false */
> > > >> + if (debugfs_fd < 0)
> > > >> + return false;
> > > > I think this should just be:
> > > >
> > > > igt_require_fd(debugfs_fd);
> > > >
> > > > Basically we cannot determine if SLPC is enabled or not if say debugfs
> > > > is
> > > > not mounted, so it's not correct return false from here.
> > >
> > > Actually, rethinking on this, we should keep it to return false. This is
> > > making tests skip on platforms where it shouldn't. Debugfs will not be
> > > mounted only when driver load fails,
> >
> > Debugfs not being mounted has nothing to do with driver load, it is just
> > that this command has not been run before running the tests (the system
> > would typically be configured to run this after boot):
> >
> > mount -t debugfs none /sys/kernel/debug/
> >
> > Ah, igt_debugfs_path() will mount debugfs if not mounted and assert if
> > mount fails. So IGT itself is mounting debugfs if not mounted.
> >
> > > which would cause the test to fail
> > > when we try to create the drm fd before this. Case in point -
> > > https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/IGTPW_8839/fi-tgl-1115g4/igt@i915_pm_...@basic-api.html
> > > - here, the test should have run (guc disabled platform) but it skipped.
> >
> > OK, sorry yes because it is checking for guc_slpc_info, which would
> > indicate whether or not slpc is enabled.
> >
> > But the issue is still there, whether or not we solve it. Say SLPC is
> > enabled but debugfs was not mounted. In the code above we will conclude
> > that slpc is not enabled. Because mulitple conditions have been combined
> > into one and there is no way to check for them separately (debugfs being
> > mounted and guc_slpc_info being present).
> >
> > The original code above has this check:
> >
> > igt_require(debugfs_fd != -1);
> >
> > Which is checking for whether or not debugfs is mounted. Where does this
> > check move in this series?
> >
> > Anyway maybe for now just change the code to return false.
>
> I think the correct way to do it would be remove igt_debugfs_gt_open from
> Patch 1
Or retain the function but don't use it.
> and call the sequence in igt_debugfs_gt_open directly from
> i915_is_slpc_enabled_gt, something like:
>
> dir = igt_debugfs_gt_dir(device, gt);
> igt_require(dir);
>
> debugfs_fd = openat(dir, "uc/guc_slpc_info", O_RDONLY);
> if (debugfs_fd < 0)
> return false;
>
> >
> > Thanks.
> > --
> > Ashutosh
> >
> > > >> + read(debugfs_fd, buf, sizeof(buf)-1);
> > > >>
> > > >> - len = igt_debugfs_simple_read(debugfs_fd,
> > > >> "gt/uc/guc_slpc_info", buf, sizeof(buf));
> > > >>close(debugfs_fd);
> > > >>
> > > >> - if (len < 0)
> > > >> - return false;
> > > >> - else
> > > >> - return strstr(buf, "SLPC state: running");
> > > >> + return strstr(buf, "SLPC state: running");
> > > >> +}
> > > >> +
> > > >> +/**
> > > >> + * i915_is_slpc_enabled:
> > > >> + * @drm_fd: DRM file descriptor
> > > >> + * Check if SLPC is enabled on GT 0
> > > > Hmm, not sure why we are not using the i915_for_each_gt() loop here
> > > > since
> > > > that is the correct way of doing it.
> > > >
> > > > At the min let's remove the GT 0 in the comment above. This
Re: [Intel-gfx] [igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t 2/4] lib: Make SLPC helper function per GT
On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 09:55:14 -0700, Dixit, Ashutosh wrote:
>
> On Sun, 23 Apr 2023 13:16:44 -0700, Belgaumkar, Vinay wrote:
> >
>
> Hi Vinay,
>
> > On 4/14/2023 1:25 PM, Dixit, Ashutosh wrote:
> > > On Fri, 14 Apr 2023 12:16:37 -0700, Vinay Belgaumkar wrote:
> > > Hi Vinay,
> > >
> > >> Use default of 0 where GT id is not being used.
> > >>
> > >> v2: Add a helper for GT 0 (Ashutosh)
> > >>
> > >> Signed-off-by: Vinay Belgaumkar
> > >> ---
> > >> lib/igt_pm.c | 36 ++--
> > >> lib/igt_pm.h | 3 ++-
> > >> 2 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> > >>
> > >> diff --git a/lib/igt_pm.c b/lib/igt_pm.c
> > >> index 704acf7d..8a30bb3b 100644
> > >> --- a/lib/igt_pm.c
> > >> +++ b/lib/igt_pm.c
> > >> @@ -1329,21 +1329,37 @@ void igt_pm_print_pci_card_runtime_status(void)
> > >> }
> > >> }
> > >>
> > >> -bool i915_is_slpc_enabled(int fd)
> > >> +/**
> > >> + * i915_is_slpc_enabled_gt:
> > >> + * @drm_fd: DRM file descriptor
> > >> + * @gt: GT id
> > >> + * Check if SLPC is enabled on a GT
> > >> + */
> > >> +bool i915_is_slpc_enabled_gt(int drm_fd, int gt)
> > >> {
> > >> -int debugfs_fd = igt_debugfs_dir(fd);
> > >> -char buf[4096] = {};
> > >> -int len;
> > >> +int debugfs_fd;
> > >> +char buf[256] = {};
> > > Shouldn't this be 4096 as before?
> > >
> > >> -igt_require(debugfs_fd != -1);
> > >> +debugfs_fd = igt_debugfs_gt_open(drm_fd, gt,
> > >> "uc/guc_slpc_info", O_RDONLY);
> > >> +
> > >> +/* if guc_slpc_info not present then return false */
> > >> +if (debugfs_fd < 0)
> > >> +return false;
> > > I think this should just be:
> > >
> > > igt_require_fd(debugfs_fd);
> > >
> > > Basically we cannot determine if SLPC is enabled or not if say debugfs is
> > > not mounted, so it's not correct return false from here.
> >
> > Actually, rethinking on this, we should keep it to return false. This is
> > making tests skip on platforms where it shouldn't. Debugfs will not be
> > mounted only when driver load fails,
>
> Debugfs not being mounted has nothing to do with driver load, it is just
> that this command has not been run before running the tests (the system
> would typically be configured to run this after boot):
>
> mount -t debugfs none /sys/kernel/debug/
>
> Ah, igt_debugfs_path() will mount debugfs if not mounted and assert if
> mount fails. So IGT itself is mounting debugfs if not mounted.
>
> > which would cause the test to fail
> > when we try to create the drm fd before this. Case in point -
> > https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/IGTPW_8839/fi-tgl-1115g4/igt@i915_pm_...@basic-api.html
> > - here, the test should have run (guc disabled platform) but it skipped.
>
> OK, sorry yes because it is checking for guc_slpc_info, which would
> indicate whether or not slpc is enabled.
>
> But the issue is still there, whether or not we solve it. Say SLPC is
> enabled but debugfs was not mounted. In the code above we will conclude
> that slpc is not enabled. Because mulitple conditions have been combined
> into one and there is no way to check for them separately (debugfs being
> mounted and guc_slpc_info being present).
>
> The original code above has this check:
>
> igt_require(debugfs_fd != -1);
>
> Which is checking for whether or not debugfs is mounted. Where does this
> check move in this series?
>
> Anyway maybe for now just change the code to return false.
I think the correct way to do it would be remove igt_debugfs_gt_open from
Patch 1 and call the sequence in igt_debugfs_gt_open directly from
i915_is_slpc_enabled_gt, something like:
dir = igt_debugfs_gt_dir(device, gt);
igt_require(dir);
debugfs_fd = openat(dir, "uc/guc_slpc_info", O_RDONLY);
if (debugfs_fd < 0)
return false;
>
> Thanks.
> --
> Ashutosh
>
> > >> +read(debugfs_fd, buf, sizeof(buf)-1);
> > >>
> > >> -len = igt_debugfs_simple_read(debugfs_fd,
> > >> "gt/uc/guc_slpc_info", buf, sizeof(buf));
> > >> close(debugfs_fd);
> > >>
> > >> -if (len < 0)
> > >> -return false;
> > >> -else
> > >> -return strstr(buf, "SLPC state: running");
> > >> +return strstr(buf, "SLPC state: running");
> > >> +}
> > >> +
> > >> +/**
> > >> + * i915_is_slpc_enabled:
> > >> + * @drm_fd: DRM file descriptor
> > >> + * Check if SLPC is enabled on GT 0
> > > Hmm, not sure why we are not using the i915_for_each_gt() loop here since
> > > that is the correct way of doing it.
> > >
> > > At the min let's remove the GT 0 in the comment above. This function
> > > doesn't check for GT0, it checks if "slpc is enabled for the device". We
> > > can check only on GT0 if we are certain that checking on GT0 is
> > > sufficient,
> > > that is if SLPC is disabled on GT0 it's disabled for the device. But then
> > > someone can ask the question in that case why are we exposing slpc_enabled
> > > for each
Re: [Intel-gfx] [igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t 2/4] lib: Make SLPC helper function per GT
On Sun, 23 Apr 2023 13:16:44 -0700, Belgaumkar, Vinay wrote:
>
Hi Vinay,
> On 4/14/2023 1:25 PM, Dixit, Ashutosh wrote:
> > On Fri, 14 Apr 2023 12:16:37 -0700, Vinay Belgaumkar wrote:
> > Hi Vinay,
> >
> >> Use default of 0 where GT id is not being used.
> >>
> >> v2: Add a helper for GT 0 (Ashutosh)
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Vinay Belgaumkar
> >> ---
> >> lib/igt_pm.c | 36 ++--
> >> lib/igt_pm.h | 3 ++-
> >> 2 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/lib/igt_pm.c b/lib/igt_pm.c
> >> index 704acf7d..8a30bb3b 100644
> >> --- a/lib/igt_pm.c
> >> +++ b/lib/igt_pm.c
> >> @@ -1329,21 +1329,37 @@ void igt_pm_print_pci_card_runtime_status(void)
> >>}
> >> }
> >>
> >> -bool i915_is_slpc_enabled(int fd)
> >> +/**
> >> + * i915_is_slpc_enabled_gt:
> >> + * @drm_fd: DRM file descriptor
> >> + * @gt: GT id
> >> + * Check if SLPC is enabled on a GT
> >> + */
> >> +bool i915_is_slpc_enabled_gt(int drm_fd, int gt)
> >> {
> >> - int debugfs_fd = igt_debugfs_dir(fd);
> >> - char buf[4096] = {};
> >> - int len;
> >> + int debugfs_fd;
> >> + char buf[256] = {};
> > Shouldn't this be 4096 as before?
> >
> >> - igt_require(debugfs_fd != -1);
> >> + debugfs_fd = igt_debugfs_gt_open(drm_fd, gt, "uc/guc_slpc_info",
> >> O_RDONLY);
> >> +
> >> + /* if guc_slpc_info not present then return false */
> >> + if (debugfs_fd < 0)
> >> + return false;
> > I think this should just be:
> >
> > igt_require_fd(debugfs_fd);
> >
> > Basically we cannot determine if SLPC is enabled or not if say debugfs is
> > not mounted, so it's not correct return false from here.
>
> Actually, rethinking on this, we should keep it to return false. This is
> making tests skip on platforms where it shouldn't. Debugfs will not be
> mounted only when driver load fails,
Debugfs not being mounted has nothing to do with driver load, it is just
that this command has not been run before running the tests (the system
would typically be configured to run this after boot):
mount -t debugfs none /sys/kernel/debug/
Ah, igt_debugfs_path() will mount debugfs if not mounted and assert if
mount fails. So IGT itself is mounting debugfs if not mounted.
> which would cause the test to fail
> when we try to create the drm fd before this. Case in point -
> https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/IGTPW_8839/fi-tgl-1115g4/igt@i915_pm_...@basic-api.html
> - here, the test should have run (guc disabled platform) but it skipped.
OK, sorry yes because it is checking for guc_slpc_info, which would
indicate whether or not slpc is enabled.
But the issue is still there, whether or not we solve it. Say SLPC is
enabled but debugfs was not mounted. In the code above we will conclude
that slpc is not enabled. Because mulitple conditions have been combined
into one and there is no way to check for them separately (debugfs being
mounted and guc_slpc_info being present).
The original code above has this check:
igt_require(debugfs_fd != -1);
Which is checking for whether or not debugfs is mounted. Where does this
check move in this series?
Anyway maybe for now just change the code to return false.
Thanks.
--
Ashutosh
> >> + read(debugfs_fd, buf, sizeof(buf)-1);
> >>
> >> - len = igt_debugfs_simple_read(debugfs_fd, "gt/uc/guc_slpc_info", buf,
> >> sizeof(buf));
> >>close(debugfs_fd);
> >>
> >> - if (len < 0)
> >> - return false;
> >> - else
> >> - return strstr(buf, "SLPC state: running");
> >> + return strstr(buf, "SLPC state: running");
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +/**
> >> + * i915_is_slpc_enabled:
> >> + * @drm_fd: DRM file descriptor
> >> + * Check if SLPC is enabled on GT 0
> > Hmm, not sure why we are not using the i915_for_each_gt() loop here since
> > that is the correct way of doing it.
> >
> > At the min let's remove the GT 0 in the comment above. This function
> > doesn't check for GT0, it checks if "slpc is enabled for the device". We
> > can check only on GT0 if we are certain that checking on GT0 is sufficient,
> > that is if SLPC is disabled on GT0 it's disabled for the device. But then
> > someone can ask the question in that case why are we exposing slpc_enabled
> > for each gt from the kernel rather than at the device level.
> >
> > In any case for now let's change the above comment to:
> >
> > "Check if SLPC is enabled" or ""Check if SLPC is enabled for the i915
> > device".
> >
> > With the above comments addressed this is:
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Ashutosh Dixit
> >
> > Also, why is igt@i915_pm_rps@basic-api still skipping on DG2/ATSM in
> > pre-merge CI even after this series?
> >
> > Thanks.
> > --
> > Ashutosh
> >
> >
> >> + */
> >> +bool i915_is_slpc_enabled(int drm_fd)
> >> +{
> >> + return i915_is_slpc_enabled_gt(drm_fd, 0);
> >> }
> >> int igt_pm_get_runtime_suspended_time(struct pci_device *pci_dev)
> >> diff --git a/lib/igt_pm.h b/lib/igt_pm.h
> >> index d0d6d673..448cf42d 100644
> >> --- a/lib/igt_pm.h
> >> +++
Re: [Intel-gfx] [igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t 2/4] lib: Make SLPC helper function per GT
On 4/14/2023 1:25 PM, Dixit, Ashutosh wrote:
On Fri, 14 Apr 2023 12:16:37 -0700, Vinay Belgaumkar wrote:
Hi Vinay,
Use default of 0 where GT id is not being used.
v2: Add a helper for GT 0 (Ashutosh)
Signed-off-by: Vinay Belgaumkar
---
lib/igt_pm.c | 36 ++--
lib/igt_pm.h | 3 ++-
2 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/igt_pm.c b/lib/igt_pm.c
index 704acf7d..8a30bb3b 100644
--- a/lib/igt_pm.c
+++ b/lib/igt_pm.c
@@ -1329,21 +1329,37 @@ void igt_pm_print_pci_card_runtime_status(void)
}
}
-bool i915_is_slpc_enabled(int fd)
+/**
+ * i915_is_slpc_enabled_gt:
+ * @drm_fd: DRM file descriptor
+ * @gt: GT id
+ * Check if SLPC is enabled on a GT
+ */
+bool i915_is_slpc_enabled_gt(int drm_fd, int gt)
{
- int debugfs_fd = igt_debugfs_dir(fd);
- char buf[4096] = {};
- int len;
+ int debugfs_fd;
+ char buf[256] = {};
Shouldn't this be 4096 as before?
- igt_require(debugfs_fd != -1);
+ debugfs_fd = igt_debugfs_gt_open(drm_fd, gt, "uc/guc_slpc_info",
O_RDONLY);
+
+ /* if guc_slpc_info not present then return false */
+ if (debugfs_fd < 0)
+ return false;
I think this should just be:
igt_require_fd(debugfs_fd);
Basically we cannot determine if SLPC is enabled or not if say debugfs is
not mounted, so it's not correct return false from here.
Actually, rethinking on this, we should keep it to return false. This is
making tests skip on platforms where it shouldn't. Debugfs will not be
mounted only when driver load fails, which would cause the test to fail
when we try to create the drm fd before this. Case in point -
https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/IGTPW_8839/fi-tgl-1115g4/igt@i915_pm_...@basic-api.html
- here, the test should have run (guc disabled platform) but it skipped.
Thanks,
Vinay.
+ read(debugfs_fd, buf, sizeof(buf)-1);
- len = igt_debugfs_simple_read(debugfs_fd, "gt/uc/guc_slpc_info", buf,
sizeof(buf));
close(debugfs_fd);
- if (len < 0)
- return false;
- else
- return strstr(buf, "SLPC state: running");
+ return strstr(buf, "SLPC state: running");
+}
+
+/**
+ * i915_is_slpc_enabled:
+ * @drm_fd: DRM file descriptor
+ * Check if SLPC is enabled on GT 0
Hmm, not sure why we are not using the i915_for_each_gt() loop here since
that is the correct way of doing it.
At the min let's remove the GT 0 in the comment above. This function
doesn't check for GT0, it checks if "slpc is enabled for the device". We
can check only on GT0 if we are certain that checking on GT0 is sufficient,
that is if SLPC is disabled on GT0 it's disabled for the device. But then
someone can ask the question in that case why are we exposing slpc_enabled
for each gt from the kernel rather than at the device level.
In any case for now let's change the above comment to:
"Check if SLPC is enabled" or ""Check if SLPC is enabled for the i915
device".
With the above comments addressed this is:
Reviewed-by: Ashutosh Dixit
Also, why is igt@i915_pm_rps@basic-api still skipping on DG2/ATSM in
pre-merge CI even after this series?
Thanks.
--
Ashutosh
+ */
+bool i915_is_slpc_enabled(int drm_fd)
+{
+ return i915_is_slpc_enabled_gt(drm_fd, 0);
}
int igt_pm_get_runtime_suspended_time(struct pci_device *pci_dev)
diff --git a/lib/igt_pm.h b/lib/igt_pm.h
index d0d6d673..448cf42d 100644
--- a/lib/igt_pm.h
+++ b/lib/igt_pm.h
@@ -84,7 +84,8 @@ void igt_pm_set_d3cold_allowed(struct igt_device_card *card,
const char *val);
void igt_pm_setup_pci_card_runtime_pm(struct pci_device *pci_dev);
void igt_pm_restore_pci_card_runtime_pm(void);
void igt_pm_print_pci_card_runtime_status(void);
-bool i915_is_slpc_enabled(int fd);
+bool i915_is_slpc_enabled_gt(int drm_fd, int gt);
+bool i915_is_slpc_enabled(int drm_fd);
int igt_pm_get_runtime_suspended_time(struct pci_device *pci_dev);
int igt_pm_get_runtime_usage(struct pci_device *pci_dev);
--
2.38.1
Re: [Intel-gfx] [igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t 2/4] lib: Make SLPC helper function per GT
On 4/14/2023 1:25 PM, Dixit, Ashutosh wrote:
On Fri, 14 Apr 2023 12:16:37 -0700, Vinay Belgaumkar wrote:
Hi Vinay,
Use default of 0 where GT id is not being used.
v2: Add a helper for GT 0 (Ashutosh)
Signed-off-by: Vinay Belgaumkar
---
lib/igt_pm.c | 36 ++--
lib/igt_pm.h | 3 ++-
2 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/igt_pm.c b/lib/igt_pm.c
index 704acf7d..8a30bb3b 100644
--- a/lib/igt_pm.c
+++ b/lib/igt_pm.c
@@ -1329,21 +1329,37 @@ void igt_pm_print_pci_card_runtime_status(void)
}
}
-bool i915_is_slpc_enabled(int fd)
+/**
+ * i915_is_slpc_enabled_gt:
+ * @drm_fd: DRM file descriptor
+ * @gt: GT id
+ * Check if SLPC is enabled on a GT
+ */
+bool i915_is_slpc_enabled_gt(int drm_fd, int gt)
{
- int debugfs_fd = igt_debugfs_dir(fd);
- char buf[4096] = {};
- int len;
+ int debugfs_fd;
+ char buf[256] = {};
Shouldn't this be 4096 as before?
ok.
- igt_require(debugfs_fd != -1);
+ debugfs_fd = igt_debugfs_gt_open(drm_fd, gt, "uc/guc_slpc_info",
O_RDONLY);
+
+ /* if guc_slpc_info not present then return false */
+ if (debugfs_fd < 0)
+ return false;
I think this should just be:
igt_require_fd(debugfs_fd);
Basically we cannot determine if SLPC is enabled or not if say debugfs is
not mounted, so it's not correct return false from here.
yup, makes sense.
+ read(debugfs_fd, buf, sizeof(buf)-1);
- len = igt_debugfs_simple_read(debugfs_fd, "gt/uc/guc_slpc_info", buf,
sizeof(buf));
close(debugfs_fd);
- if (len < 0)
- return false;
- else
- return strstr(buf, "SLPC state: running");
+ return strstr(buf, "SLPC state: running");
+}
+
+/**
+ * i915_is_slpc_enabled:
+ * @drm_fd: DRM file descriptor
+ * Check if SLPC is enabled on GT 0
Hmm, not sure why we are not using the i915_for_each_gt() loop here since
that is the correct way of doing it.
Didn't want to introduce another aggregation here. If SLPC is enabled on
GT0, it is obviously enabled on all other tiles on that device. There is
no per tile SLPC/GuC control.
At the min let's remove the GT 0 in the comment above. This function
doesn't check for GT0, it checks if "slpc is enabled for the device". We
can check only on GT0 if we are certain that checking on GT0 is sufficient,
that is if SLPC is disabled on GT0 it's disabled for the device. But then
someone can ask the question in that case why are we exposing slpc_enabled
for each gt from the kernel rather than at the device level.
In any case for now let's change the above comment to:
"Check if SLPC is enabled" or ""Check if SLPC is enabled for the i915
device".
ok.
With the above comments addressed this is:
Reviewed-by: Ashutosh Dixit
Also, why is igt@i915_pm_rps@basic-api still skipping on DG2/ATSM in
pre-merge CI even after this series?
basic-api is supposed to skip on GuC platforms. It wasn't due to the
test incorrectly reading the SLPC enabled status from debugfs (which is
being fixed here).
Thanks for the review,
Vinay.
Thanks.
--
Ashutosh
+ */
+bool i915_is_slpc_enabled(int drm_fd)
+{
+ return i915_is_slpc_enabled_gt(drm_fd, 0);
}
int igt_pm_get_runtime_suspended_time(struct pci_device *pci_dev)
diff --git a/lib/igt_pm.h b/lib/igt_pm.h
index d0d6d673..448cf42d 100644
--- a/lib/igt_pm.h
+++ b/lib/igt_pm.h
@@ -84,7 +84,8 @@ void igt_pm_set_d3cold_allowed(struct igt_device_card *card,
const char *val);
void igt_pm_setup_pci_card_runtime_pm(struct pci_device *pci_dev);
void igt_pm_restore_pci_card_runtime_pm(void);
void igt_pm_print_pci_card_runtime_status(void);
-bool i915_is_slpc_enabled(int fd);
+bool i915_is_slpc_enabled_gt(int drm_fd, int gt);
+bool i915_is_slpc_enabled(int drm_fd);
int igt_pm_get_runtime_suspended_time(struct pci_device *pci_dev);
int igt_pm_get_runtime_usage(struct pci_device *pci_dev);
--
2.38.1
Re: [Intel-gfx] [igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t 2/4] lib: Make SLPC helper function per GT
On Fri, 14 Apr 2023 12:16:37 -0700, Vinay Belgaumkar wrote:
>
Hi Vinay,
> Use default of 0 where GT id is not being used.
>
> v2: Add a helper for GT 0 (Ashutosh)
>
> Signed-off-by: Vinay Belgaumkar
> ---
> lib/igt_pm.c | 36 ++--
> lib/igt_pm.h | 3 ++-
> 2 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/igt_pm.c b/lib/igt_pm.c
> index 704acf7d..8a30bb3b 100644
> --- a/lib/igt_pm.c
> +++ b/lib/igt_pm.c
> @@ -1329,21 +1329,37 @@ void igt_pm_print_pci_card_runtime_status(void)
> }
> }
>
> -bool i915_is_slpc_enabled(int fd)
> +/**
> + * i915_is_slpc_enabled_gt:
> + * @drm_fd: DRM file descriptor
> + * @gt: GT id
> + * Check if SLPC is enabled on a GT
> + */
> +bool i915_is_slpc_enabled_gt(int drm_fd, int gt)
> {
> - int debugfs_fd = igt_debugfs_dir(fd);
> - char buf[4096] = {};
> - int len;
> + int debugfs_fd;
> + char buf[256] = {};
Shouldn't this be 4096 as before?
>
> - igt_require(debugfs_fd != -1);
> + debugfs_fd = igt_debugfs_gt_open(drm_fd, gt, "uc/guc_slpc_info",
> O_RDONLY);
> +
> + /* if guc_slpc_info not present then return false */
> + if (debugfs_fd < 0)
> + return false;
I think this should just be:
igt_require_fd(debugfs_fd);
Basically we cannot determine if SLPC is enabled or not if say debugfs is
not mounted, so it's not correct return false from here.
> + read(debugfs_fd, buf, sizeof(buf)-1);
>
> - len = igt_debugfs_simple_read(debugfs_fd, "gt/uc/guc_slpc_info", buf,
> sizeof(buf));
> close(debugfs_fd);
>
> - if (len < 0)
> - return false;
> - else
> - return strstr(buf, "SLPC state: running");
> + return strstr(buf, "SLPC state: running");
> +}
> +
> +/**
> + * i915_is_slpc_enabled:
> + * @drm_fd: DRM file descriptor
> + * Check if SLPC is enabled on GT 0
Hmm, not sure why we are not using the i915_for_each_gt() loop here since
that is the correct way of doing it.
At the min let's remove the GT 0 in the comment above. This function
doesn't check for GT0, it checks if "slpc is enabled for the device". We
can check only on GT0 if we are certain that checking on GT0 is sufficient,
that is if SLPC is disabled on GT0 it's disabled for the device. But then
someone can ask the question in that case why are we exposing slpc_enabled
for each gt from the kernel rather than at the device level.
In any case for now let's change the above comment to:
"Check if SLPC is enabled" or ""Check if SLPC is enabled for the i915
device".
With the above comments addressed this is:
Reviewed-by: Ashutosh Dixit
Also, why is igt@i915_pm_rps@basic-api still skipping on DG2/ATSM in
pre-merge CI even after this series?
Thanks.
--
Ashutosh
> + */
> +bool i915_is_slpc_enabled(int drm_fd)
> +{
> + return i915_is_slpc_enabled_gt(drm_fd, 0);
> }
>
> int igt_pm_get_runtime_suspended_time(struct pci_device *pci_dev)
> diff --git a/lib/igt_pm.h b/lib/igt_pm.h
> index d0d6d673..448cf42d 100644
> --- a/lib/igt_pm.h
> +++ b/lib/igt_pm.h
> @@ -84,7 +84,8 @@ void igt_pm_set_d3cold_allowed(struct igt_device_card
> *card, const char *val);
> void igt_pm_setup_pci_card_runtime_pm(struct pci_device *pci_dev);
> void igt_pm_restore_pci_card_runtime_pm(void);
> void igt_pm_print_pci_card_runtime_status(void);
> -bool i915_is_slpc_enabled(int fd);
> +bool i915_is_slpc_enabled_gt(int drm_fd, int gt);
> +bool i915_is_slpc_enabled(int drm_fd);
> int igt_pm_get_runtime_suspended_time(struct pci_device *pci_dev);
> int igt_pm_get_runtime_usage(struct pci_device *pci_dev);
>
> --
> 2.38.1
>
Re: [Intel-gfx] [igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t 2/4] lib: Make SLPC helper function per GT
On 4/14/2023 11:10 AM, Dixit, Ashutosh wrote:
On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 15:44:12 -0700, Vinay Belgaumkar wrote:
Use default of 0 where GT id is not being used.
Signed-off-by: Vinay Belgaumkar
---
lib/igt_pm.c | 20 ++--
lib/igt_pm.h | 2 +-
tests/i915/i915_pm_rps.c | 6 +++---
3 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/igt_pm.c b/lib/igt_pm.c
index 704acf7d..8ca7c181 100644
--- a/lib/igt_pm.c
+++ b/lib/igt_pm.c
@@ -1329,21 +1329,21 @@ void igt_pm_print_pci_card_runtime_status(void)
}
}
-bool i915_is_slpc_enabled(int fd)
+bool i915_is_slpc_enabled(int drm_fd, int gt)
OK, we understand that the debugfs dir path is per gt, but I am wondering
if we need to expose this as a function argument? Since, in all instances,
we are always passing gt as 0.
Maybe the caller is only interested in knowing if slpc is enabled. Can SLPC
be enabled for gt 0 and disabled for gt 1? In the case the caller should
really call something like:
for_each_gt()
i915_is_slpc_enabled(fd, gt)
and return false if slpc is disabled for any gt.
I think what we should do is write two functions:
1. Rename the function above with the gt argument to something like:
i915_is_slpc_enabled_gt()
2. Have another function without the gt argument:
i915_is_slpc_enabled() which will do:
for_each_gt()
i915_is_slpc_enabled_gt(fd, gt)
and return false if slpc is disabled for any gt.
And then have the tests call this second function without the gt argument.
I think this will be cleaner than passing 0 as the gt from the tests.
ok, created a helper for the helper :) This will hard code GT 0 instead
of the tests doing it, when necessary.
Thanks,
Vinay.
Thanks.
--
Ashutosh
{
- int debugfs_fd = igt_debugfs_dir(fd);
- char buf[4096] = {};
- int len;
+ int debugfs_fd;
+ char buf[256] = {};
+
+ debugfs_fd = igt_debugfs_gt_open(drm_fd, gt, "uc/guc_slpc_info",
O_RDONLY);
- igt_require(debugfs_fd != -1);
+ /* if guc_slpc_info not present then return false */
+ if (debugfs_fd < 0)
+ return false;
+ read(debugfs_fd, buf, sizeof(buf)-1);
- len = igt_debugfs_simple_read(debugfs_fd, "gt/uc/guc_slpc_info", buf,
sizeof(buf));
close(debugfs_fd);
- if (len < 0)
- return false;
- else
- return strstr(buf, "SLPC state: running");
+ return strstr(buf, "SLPC state: running");
}
int igt_pm_get_runtime_suspended_time(struct pci_device *pci_dev)
diff --git a/lib/igt_pm.h b/lib/igt_pm.h
index d0d6d673..1b054dce 100644
--- a/lib/igt_pm.h
+++ b/lib/igt_pm.h
@@ -84,7 +84,7 @@ void igt_pm_set_d3cold_allowed(struct igt_device_card *card,
const char *val);
void igt_pm_setup_pci_card_runtime_pm(struct pci_device *pci_dev);
void igt_pm_restore_pci_card_runtime_pm(void);
void igt_pm_print_pci_card_runtime_status(void);
-bool i915_is_slpc_enabled(int fd);
+bool i915_is_slpc_enabled(int fd, int gt);
int igt_pm_get_runtime_suspended_time(struct pci_device *pci_dev);
int igt_pm_get_runtime_usage(struct pci_device *pci_dev);
diff --git a/tests/i915/i915_pm_rps.c b/tests/i915/i915_pm_rps.c
index d4ee2d58..85dae449 100644
--- a/tests/i915/i915_pm_rps.c
+++ b/tests/i915/i915_pm_rps.c
@@ -916,21 +916,21 @@ igt_main
}
igt_subtest("basic-api") {
- igt_skip_on_f(i915_is_slpc_enabled(drm_fd),
+ igt_skip_on_f(i915_is_slpc_enabled(drm_fd, 0),
"This subtest is not supported when SLPC is
enabled\n");
min_max_config(basic_check, false);
}
/* Verify the constraints, check if we can reach idle */
igt_subtest("min-max-config-idle") {
- igt_skip_on_f(i915_is_slpc_enabled(drm_fd),
+ igt_skip_on_f(i915_is_slpc_enabled(drm_fd, 0),
"This subtest is not supported when SLPC is
enabled\n");
min_max_config(idle_check, true);
}
/* Verify the constraints with high load, check if we can reach max */
igt_subtest("min-max-config-loaded") {
- igt_skip_on_f(i915_is_slpc_enabled(drm_fd),
+ igt_skip_on_f(i915_is_slpc_enabled(drm_fd, 0),
"This subtest is not supported when SLPC is
enabled\n");
load_helper_run(HIGH);
min_max_config(loaded_check, false);
--
2.38.1
Re: [Intel-gfx] [igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t 2/4] lib: Make SLPC helper function per GT
On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 15:44:12 -0700, Vinay Belgaumkar wrote:
>
> Use default of 0 where GT id is not being used.
>
> Signed-off-by: Vinay Belgaumkar
> ---
> lib/igt_pm.c | 20 ++--
> lib/igt_pm.h | 2 +-
> tests/i915/i915_pm_rps.c | 6 +++---
> 3 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/igt_pm.c b/lib/igt_pm.c
> index 704acf7d..8ca7c181 100644
> --- a/lib/igt_pm.c
> +++ b/lib/igt_pm.c
> @@ -1329,21 +1329,21 @@ void igt_pm_print_pci_card_runtime_status(void)
> }
> }
>
> -bool i915_is_slpc_enabled(int fd)
> +bool i915_is_slpc_enabled(int drm_fd, int gt)
OK, we understand that the debugfs dir path is per gt, but I am wondering
if we need to expose this as a function argument? Since, in all instances,
we are always passing gt as 0.
Maybe the caller is only interested in knowing if slpc is enabled. Can SLPC
be enabled for gt 0 and disabled for gt 1? In the case the caller should
really call something like:
for_each_gt()
i915_is_slpc_enabled(fd, gt)
and return false if slpc is disabled for any gt.
I think what we should do is write two functions:
1. Rename the function above with the gt argument to something like:
i915_is_slpc_enabled_gt()
2. Have another function without the gt argument:
i915_is_slpc_enabled() which will do:
for_each_gt()
i915_is_slpc_enabled_gt(fd, gt)
and return false if slpc is disabled for any gt.
And then have the tests call this second function without the gt argument.
I think this will be cleaner than passing 0 as the gt from the tests.
Thanks.
--
Ashutosh
> {
> - int debugfs_fd = igt_debugfs_dir(fd);
> - char buf[4096] = {};
> - int len;
> + int debugfs_fd;
> + char buf[256] = {};
> +
> + debugfs_fd = igt_debugfs_gt_open(drm_fd, gt, "uc/guc_slpc_info",
> O_RDONLY);
>
> - igt_require(debugfs_fd != -1);
> + /* if guc_slpc_info not present then return false */
> + if (debugfs_fd < 0)
> + return false;
> + read(debugfs_fd, buf, sizeof(buf)-1);
>
> - len = igt_debugfs_simple_read(debugfs_fd, "gt/uc/guc_slpc_info", buf,
> sizeof(buf));
> close(debugfs_fd);
>
> - if (len < 0)
> - return false;
> - else
> - return strstr(buf, "SLPC state: running");
> + return strstr(buf, "SLPC state: running");
> }
>
> int igt_pm_get_runtime_suspended_time(struct pci_device *pci_dev)
> diff --git a/lib/igt_pm.h b/lib/igt_pm.h
> index d0d6d673..1b054dce 100644
> --- a/lib/igt_pm.h
> +++ b/lib/igt_pm.h
> @@ -84,7 +84,7 @@ void igt_pm_set_d3cold_allowed(struct igt_device_card
> *card, const char *val);
> void igt_pm_setup_pci_card_runtime_pm(struct pci_device *pci_dev);
> void igt_pm_restore_pci_card_runtime_pm(void);
> void igt_pm_print_pci_card_runtime_status(void);
> -bool i915_is_slpc_enabled(int fd);
> +bool i915_is_slpc_enabled(int fd, int gt);
> int igt_pm_get_runtime_suspended_time(struct pci_device *pci_dev);
> int igt_pm_get_runtime_usage(struct pci_device *pci_dev);
>
> diff --git a/tests/i915/i915_pm_rps.c b/tests/i915/i915_pm_rps.c
> index d4ee2d58..85dae449 100644
> --- a/tests/i915/i915_pm_rps.c
> +++ b/tests/i915/i915_pm_rps.c
> @@ -916,21 +916,21 @@ igt_main
> }
>
> igt_subtest("basic-api") {
> - igt_skip_on_f(i915_is_slpc_enabled(drm_fd),
> + igt_skip_on_f(i915_is_slpc_enabled(drm_fd, 0),
> "This subtest is not supported when SLPC is
> enabled\n");
> min_max_config(basic_check, false);
> }
>
> /* Verify the constraints, check if we can reach idle */
> igt_subtest("min-max-config-idle") {
> - igt_skip_on_f(i915_is_slpc_enabled(drm_fd),
> + igt_skip_on_f(i915_is_slpc_enabled(drm_fd, 0),
> "This subtest is not supported when SLPC is
> enabled\n");
> min_max_config(idle_check, true);
> }
>
> /* Verify the constraints with high load, check if we can reach max */
> igt_subtest("min-max-config-loaded") {
> - igt_skip_on_f(i915_is_slpc_enabled(drm_fd),
> + igt_skip_on_f(i915_is_slpc_enabled(drm_fd, 0),
> "This subtest is not supported when SLPC is
> enabled\n");
> load_helper_run(HIGH);
> min_max_config(loaded_check, false);
> --
> 2.38.1
>
