Message ID | 20230328020028.2143954-3-vinay.belgaumkar@intel.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
State | New, archived |
Headers | show |
Series | tests/slpc: Add basic IGT test | expand |
On Mon, 27 Mar 2023 19:00:28 -0700, Vinay Belgaumkar wrote: > Hi Vinay, > +/* > + * Too many intermediate components and steps before freq is adjusted > + * Specially if workload is under execution, so let's wait 100 ms. > + */ > +#define ACT_FREQ_LATENCY_US 100000 > + > +static uint32_t get_freq(int dirfd, uint8_t id) > +{ > + uint32_t val; > + > + igt_require(igt_sysfs_rps_scanf(dirfd, id, "%u", &val) == 1); igt_assert? > +static void test_freq_basic_api(int dirfd, int gt) > +{ > + uint32_t rpn, rp0, rpe; > + > + /* Save frequencies */ > + rpn = get_freq(dirfd, RPS_RPn_FREQ_MHZ); > + rp0 = get_freq(dirfd, RPS_RP0_FREQ_MHZ); > + rpe = get_freq(dirfd, RPS_RP1_FREQ_MHZ); > + igt_info("System min freq: %dMHz; max freq: %dMHz\n", rpn, rp0); > + > + /* > + * Negative bound tests > + * RPn is the floor > + * RP0 is the ceiling > + */ > + igt_assert(set_freq(dirfd, RPS_MIN_FREQ_MHZ, rpn - 1) < 0); > + igt_assert(set_freq(dirfd, RPS_MIN_FREQ_MHZ, rp0 + 1) < 0); > + igt_assert(set_freq(dirfd, RPS_MIN_FREQ_MHZ, rpn - 1) < 0); Is this supposed to be RPS_MAX_FREQ_MHZ? > + igt_assert(set_freq(dirfd, RPS_MAX_FREQ_MHZ, rp0 + 1) < 0); > + After addressing the above, this is: Reviewed-by: Ashutosh Dixit <ashutosh.dixit@intel.com> Also, before merging it would be good to see the results of the new tests. So could you add a HAX patch adding the new tests to fast-feedback.testlist and resend the series? Thanks. -- Ashutosh
On 3/31/2023 4:56 PM, Dixit, Ashutosh wrote: > On Mon, 27 Mar 2023 19:00:28 -0700, Vinay Belgaumkar wrote: > Hi Vinay, > >> +/* >> + * Too many intermediate components and steps before freq is adjusted >> + * Specially if workload is under execution, so let's wait 100 ms. >> + */ >> +#define ACT_FREQ_LATENCY_US 100000 >> + >> +static uint32_t get_freq(int dirfd, uint8_t id) >> +{ >> + uint32_t val; >> + >> + igt_require(igt_sysfs_rps_scanf(dirfd, id, "%u", &val) == 1); > igt_assert? ok. > >> +static void test_freq_basic_api(int dirfd, int gt) >> +{ >> + uint32_t rpn, rp0, rpe; >> + >> + /* Save frequencies */ >> + rpn = get_freq(dirfd, RPS_RPn_FREQ_MHZ); >> + rp0 = get_freq(dirfd, RPS_RP0_FREQ_MHZ); >> + rpe = get_freq(dirfd, RPS_RP1_FREQ_MHZ); >> + igt_info("System min freq: %dMHz; max freq: %dMHz\n", rpn, rp0); >> + >> + /* >> + * Negative bound tests >> + * RPn is the floor >> + * RP0 is the ceiling >> + */ >> + igt_assert(set_freq(dirfd, RPS_MIN_FREQ_MHZ, rpn - 1) < 0); >> + igt_assert(set_freq(dirfd, RPS_MIN_FREQ_MHZ, rp0 + 1) < 0); >> + igt_assert(set_freq(dirfd, RPS_MIN_FREQ_MHZ, rpn - 1) < 0); > Is this supposed to be RPS_MAX_FREQ_MHZ? We could do this check for max as well. But this is trying to see if min can be set to below rpn. > >> + igt_assert(set_freq(dirfd, RPS_MAX_FREQ_MHZ, rp0 + 1) < 0); >> + > After addressing the above, this is: > > Reviewed-by: Ashutosh Dixit <ashutosh.dixit@intel.com> > > Also, before merging it would be good to see the results of the new > tests. So could you add a HAX patch adding the new tests to > fast-feedback.testlist and resend the series? Sure, will do. Thanks for the review. Vinay. > > Thanks. > -- > Ashutosh
On Mon, 03 Apr 2023 08:23:45 -0700, Belgaumkar, Vinay wrote: > > > On 3/31/2023 4:56 PM, Dixit, Ashutosh wrote: > > On Mon, 27 Mar 2023 19:00:28 -0700, Vinay Belgaumkar wrote: > > Hi Vinay, > > > >> +/* > >> + * Too many intermediate components and steps before freq is adjusted > >> + * Specially if workload is under execution, so let's wait 100 ms. > >> + */ > >> +#define ACT_FREQ_LATENCY_US 100000 > >> + > >> +static uint32_t get_freq(int dirfd, uint8_t id) > >> +{ > >> + uint32_t val; > >> + > >> + igt_require(igt_sysfs_rps_scanf(dirfd, id, "%u", &val) == 1); > > igt_assert? > ok. > > > >> +static void test_freq_basic_api(int dirfd, int gt) > >> +{ > >> + uint32_t rpn, rp0, rpe; > >> + > >> + /* Save frequencies */ > >> + rpn = get_freq(dirfd, RPS_RPn_FREQ_MHZ); > >> + rp0 = get_freq(dirfd, RPS_RP0_FREQ_MHZ); > >> + rpe = get_freq(dirfd, RPS_RP1_FREQ_MHZ); > >> + igt_info("System min freq: %dMHz; max freq: %dMHz\n", rpn, rp0); > >> + > >> + /* > >> + * Negative bound tests > >> + * RPn is the floor > >> + * RP0 is the ceiling > >> + */ > >> + igt_assert(set_freq(dirfd, RPS_MIN_FREQ_MHZ, rpn - 1) < 0); > >> + igt_assert(set_freq(dirfd, RPS_MIN_FREQ_MHZ, rp0 + 1) < 0); > >> + igt_assert(set_freq(dirfd, RPS_MIN_FREQ_MHZ, rpn - 1) < 0); > > Is this supposed to be RPS_MAX_FREQ_MHZ? > We could do this check for max as well. But this is trying to see if min > can be set to below rpn. In that case this statement is the same as the first one (2 lines above). Is that needed? > >> + igt_assert(set_freq(dirfd, RPS_MAX_FREQ_MHZ, rp0 + 1) < 0); > >> + > > After addressing the above, this is: > > > > Reviewed-by: Ashutosh Dixit <ashutosh.dixit@intel.com> > > > > Also, before merging it would be good to see the results of the new > > tests. So could you add a HAX patch adding the new tests to > > fast-feedback.testlist and resend the series? > > Sure, will do. Thanks for the review. > > Vinay. > > > > > Thanks. > > -- > > Ashutosh
On 4/3/2023 8:36 AM, Dixit, Ashutosh wrote: > On Mon, 03 Apr 2023 08:23:45 -0700, Belgaumkar, Vinay wrote: >> >> On 3/31/2023 4:56 PM, Dixit, Ashutosh wrote: >>> On Mon, 27 Mar 2023 19:00:28 -0700, Vinay Belgaumkar wrote: >>> Hi Vinay, >>> >>>> +/* >>>> + * Too many intermediate components and steps before freq is adjusted >>>> + * Specially if workload is under execution, so let's wait 100 ms. >>>> + */ >>>> +#define ACT_FREQ_LATENCY_US 100000 >>>> + >>>> +static uint32_t get_freq(int dirfd, uint8_t id) >>>> +{ >>>> + uint32_t val; >>>> + >>>> + igt_require(igt_sysfs_rps_scanf(dirfd, id, "%u", &val) == 1); >>> igt_assert? >> ok. >>>> +static void test_freq_basic_api(int dirfd, int gt) >>>> +{ >>>> + uint32_t rpn, rp0, rpe; >>>> + >>>> + /* Save frequencies */ >>>> + rpn = get_freq(dirfd, RPS_RPn_FREQ_MHZ); >>>> + rp0 = get_freq(dirfd, RPS_RP0_FREQ_MHZ); >>>> + rpe = get_freq(dirfd, RPS_RP1_FREQ_MHZ); >>>> + igt_info("System min freq: %dMHz; max freq: %dMHz\n", rpn, rp0); >>>> + >>>> + /* >>>> + * Negative bound tests >>>> + * RPn is the floor >>>> + * RP0 is the ceiling >>>> + */ >>>> + igt_assert(set_freq(dirfd, RPS_MIN_FREQ_MHZ, rpn - 1) < 0); >>>> + igt_assert(set_freq(dirfd, RPS_MIN_FREQ_MHZ, rp0 + 1) < 0); >>>> + igt_assert(set_freq(dirfd, RPS_MIN_FREQ_MHZ, rpn - 1) < 0); >>> Is this supposed to be RPS_MAX_FREQ_MHZ? >> We could do this check for max as well. But this is trying to see if min >> can be set to below rpn. > In that case this statement is the same as the first one (2 lines > above). Is that needed? ah, yes. Need more coffee. That should be RPS_MAX_FREQ_MHZ. Thanks, Vinay. > > > >>>> + igt_assert(set_freq(dirfd, RPS_MAX_FREQ_MHZ, rp0 + 1) < 0); >>>> + >>> After addressing the above, this is: >>> >>> Reviewed-by: Ashutosh Dixit <ashutosh.dixit@intel.com> >>> >>> Also, before merging it would be good to see the results of the new >>> tests. So could you add a HAX patch adding the new tests to >>> fast-feedback.testlist and resend the series? >> Sure, will do. Thanks for the review. >> >> Vinay. >> >>> Thanks. >>> -- >>> Ashutosh
diff --git a/tests/i915/i915_pm_freq_api.c b/tests/i915/i915_pm_freq_api.c new file mode 100644 index 00000000..f1027d1c --- /dev/null +++ b/tests/i915/i915_pm_freq_api.c @@ -0,0 +1,151 @@ +// SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT +/* + * Copyright © 2023 Intel Corporation + */ + +#include <dirent.h> +#include <errno.h> +#include <fcntl.h> +#include <inttypes.h> +#include <stdlib.h> +#include <sys/stat.h> +#include <sys/syscall.h> +#include <sys/types.h> +#include <unistd.h> + +#include "drmtest.h" +#include "i915/gem.h" +#include "igt_sysfs.h" +#include "igt.h" + +IGT_TEST_DESCRIPTION("Test SLPC freq API"); +/* + * Too many intermediate components and steps before freq is adjusted + * Specially if workload is under execution, so let's wait 100 ms. + */ +#define ACT_FREQ_LATENCY_US 100000 + +static uint32_t get_freq(int dirfd, uint8_t id) +{ + uint32_t val; + + igt_require(igt_sysfs_rps_scanf(dirfd, id, "%u", &val) == 1); + + return val; +} + +static int set_freq(int dirfd, uint8_t id, uint32_t val) +{ + return igt_sysfs_rps_printf(dirfd, id, "%u", val); +} + +static void test_freq_basic_api(int dirfd, int gt) +{ + uint32_t rpn, rp0, rpe; + + /* Save frequencies */ + rpn = get_freq(dirfd, RPS_RPn_FREQ_MHZ); + rp0 = get_freq(dirfd, RPS_RP0_FREQ_MHZ); + rpe = get_freq(dirfd, RPS_RP1_FREQ_MHZ); + igt_info("System min freq: %dMHz; max freq: %dMHz\n", rpn, rp0); + + /* + * Negative bound tests + * RPn is the floor + * RP0 is the ceiling + */ + igt_assert(set_freq(dirfd, RPS_MIN_FREQ_MHZ, rpn - 1) < 0); + igt_assert(set_freq(dirfd, RPS_MIN_FREQ_MHZ, rp0 + 1) < 0); + igt_assert(set_freq(dirfd, RPS_MIN_FREQ_MHZ, rpn - 1) < 0); + igt_assert(set_freq(dirfd, RPS_MAX_FREQ_MHZ, rp0 + 1) < 0); + + /* Assert min requests are respected from rp0 to rpn */ + igt_assert(set_freq(dirfd, RPS_MIN_FREQ_MHZ, rp0) > 0); + igt_assert(get_freq(dirfd, RPS_MIN_FREQ_MHZ) == rp0); + igt_assert(set_freq(dirfd, RPS_MIN_FREQ_MHZ, rpe) > 0); + igt_assert(get_freq(dirfd, RPS_MIN_FREQ_MHZ) == rpe); + igt_assert(set_freq(dirfd, RPS_MIN_FREQ_MHZ, rpn) > 0); + igt_assert(get_freq(dirfd, RPS_MIN_FREQ_MHZ) == rpn); + + /* Assert max requests are respected from rpn to rp0 */ + igt_assert(set_freq(dirfd, RPS_MAX_FREQ_MHZ, rpn) > 0); + igt_assert(get_freq(dirfd, RPS_MAX_FREQ_MHZ) == rpn); + igt_assert(set_freq(dirfd, RPS_MAX_FREQ_MHZ, rpe) > 0); + igt_assert(get_freq(dirfd, RPS_MAX_FREQ_MHZ) == rpe); + igt_assert(set_freq(dirfd, RPS_MAX_FREQ_MHZ, rp0) > 0); + igt_assert(get_freq(dirfd, RPS_MAX_FREQ_MHZ) == rp0); + +} + +static void test_reset(int i915, int dirfd, int gt) +{ + uint32_t rpn = get_freq(dirfd, RPS_RPn_FREQ_MHZ); + int fd; + + igt_assert(set_freq(dirfd, RPS_MIN_FREQ_MHZ, rpn) > 0); + igt_assert(set_freq(dirfd, RPS_MAX_FREQ_MHZ, rpn) > 0); + usleep(ACT_FREQ_LATENCY_US); + igt_assert(get_freq(dirfd, RPS_MIN_FREQ_MHZ) == rpn); + + /* Manually trigger a GT reset */ + fd = igt_debugfs_gt_open(i915, gt, "reset", O_WRONLY); + igt_require(fd >= 0); + igt_ignore_warn(write(fd, "1\n", 2)); + close(fd); + + igt_assert(get_freq(dirfd, RPS_MIN_FREQ_MHZ) == rpn); + igt_assert(get_freq(dirfd, RPS_MAX_FREQ_MHZ) == rpn); +} + +igt_main +{ + int i915 = -1; + uint32_t *stash_min, *stash_max; + + igt_fixture { + int num_gts, dirfd, gt; + + i915 = drm_open_driver(DRIVER_INTEL); + igt_require_gem(i915); + /* i915_pm_rps already covers execlist path */ + igt_require(gem_using_guc_submission(i915)); + + num_gts = igt_sysfs_get_num_gt(i915); + stash_min = (uint32_t*)malloc(sizeof(uint32_t) * num_gts); + stash_max = (uint32_t*)malloc(sizeof(uint32_t) * num_gts); + + /* Save curr min and max across GTs */ + for_each_sysfs_gt_dirfd(i915, dirfd, gt) { + stash_min[gt] = get_freq(dirfd, RPS_MIN_FREQ_MHZ); + stash_max[gt] = get_freq(dirfd, RPS_MAX_FREQ_MHZ); + } + } + + igt_describe("Test basic API for controlling min/max GT frequency"); + igt_subtest_with_dynamic_f("freq-basic-api") { + int dirfd, gt; + + for_each_sysfs_gt_dirfd(i915, dirfd, gt) + igt_dynamic_f("gt%u", gt) + test_freq_basic_api(dirfd, gt); + } + + igt_describe("Test basic freq API works after a reset"); + igt_subtest_with_dynamic_f("freq-reset") { + int dirfd, gt; + + for_each_sysfs_gt_dirfd(i915, dirfd, gt) + igt_dynamic_f("gt%u", gt) + test_reset(i915, dirfd, gt); + } + + igt_fixture { + int dirfd, gt; + /* Restore frequencies */ + for_each_sysfs_gt_dirfd(i915, dirfd, gt) { + igt_assert(set_freq(dirfd, RPS_MAX_FREQ_MHZ, stash_max[gt]) > 0); + igt_assert(set_freq(dirfd, RPS_MIN_FREQ_MHZ, stash_min[gt]) > 0); + } + close(i915); + } +} diff --git a/tests/meson.build b/tests/meson.build index 7d2168be..072cae30 100644 --- a/tests/meson.build +++ b/tests/meson.build @@ -202,6 +202,7 @@ i915_progs = [ 'gem_workarounds', 'i915_fb_tiling', 'i915_getparams_basic', + 'i915_pm_freq_api', 'i915_hangman', 'i915_hwmon', 'i915_module_load',
Validate basic api for GT freq control. Also test interaction with GT reset. We skip rps tests with SLPC enabled, this will re-introduce some coverage. SLPC selftests are already covering some other workload related scenarios. v2: Rename test (Rodrigo) Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com> Signed-off-by: Vinay Belgaumkar <vinay.belgaumkar@intel.com> --- tests/i915/i915_pm_freq_api.c | 151 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ tests/meson.build | 1 + 2 files changed, 152 insertions(+) create mode 100644 tests/i915/i915_pm_freq_api.c