linux_dsm_epyc7002/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/Kconfig.profile

config DRM_I915_SPIN_REQUEST
	int
	default 5 # microseconds
	help
	  Before sleeping waiting for a request (GPU operation) to complete,
	  we may spend some time polling for its completion. As the IRQ may
	  take a non-negligible time to setup, we do a short spin first to
	  check if the request will complete in the time it would have taken
	  us to enable the interrupt.

	  May be 0 to disable the initial spin. In practice, we estimate
	  the cost of enabling the interrupt (if currently disabled) to be
	  a few microseconds.
drm/i915: Expose the busyspin durations for i915_wait_request An interesting discussion regarding "hybrid interrupt polling" for NVMe came to the conclusion that the ideal busyspin before sleeping was half of the expected request latency (and better if it was already halfway through that request). This suggested that we too should look again at our tradeoff between spinning and waiting. Currently, our spin simply tries to hide the cost of enabling the interrupt, which is good to avoid penalising nop requests (i.e. test throughput) and not much else. Studying real world workloads suggests that a spin of upto 500us can dramatically boost performance, but the suggestion is that this is not from avoiding interrupt latency per-se, but from secondary effects of sleeping such as allowing the CPU reduce cstate and context switch away. In a truly hybrid interrupt polling scheme, we would aim to sleep until just before the request completed and then wake up in advance of the interrupt and do a quick poll to handle completion. This is tricky for ourselves at the moment as we are not recording request times, and since we allow preemption, our requests are not on as a nicely ordered timeline as IO. However, the idea is interesting, for it will certainly help us decide when busyspinning is worthwhile. v2: Expose the spin setting via Kconfig options for easier adjustment and testing. v3: Don't get caught sneaking in a change to the busyspin parameters. v4: Explain more about the "hybrid interrupt polling" scheme that we want to migrate towards. Suggested-by: Sagar Kamble <sagar.a.kamble@intel.com> References: http://events.linuxfoundation.org/sites/events/files/slides/lemoal-nvme-polling-vault-2017-final_0.pdf Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> Cc: Sagar Kamble <sagar.a.kamble@intel.com> Cc: Eero Tamminen <eero.t.tamminen@intel.com> Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com> Cc: Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net> Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com> Cc: Michał Winiarski <michal.winiarski@intel.com> Reviewed-by: Sagar Kamble <sagar.a.kamble@intel.com> Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20190419182625.11186-1-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk 2019-04-20 01:26:25 +07:00			`config DRM_I915_SPIN_REQUEST`
			`int`
			`default 5 # microseconds`
			`help`
			`Before sleeping waiting for a request (GPU operation) to complete,`
			`we may spend some time polling for its completion. As the IRQ may`
			`take a non-negligible time to setup, we do a short spin first to`
			`check if the request will complete in the time it would have taken`
			`us to enable the interrupt.`

			`May be 0 to disable the initial spin. In practice, we estimate`
			`the cost of enabling the interrupt (if currently disabled) to be`
			`a few microseconds.`