All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
To: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Subject: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/2] drm/i915: Once executed, always executed
Date: Fri, 29 May 2020 09:58:09 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200529085809.23691-2-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200529085809.23691-1-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>

With the advent of preempt-to-busy, a request may still be on the GPU as
we unwind. And in the case of a unpreemptible [due to HW] request, that
request will remain indefinitely on the GPU event though we have
returned it back to our submission queue, and cleared the active bit.

We only run the execution callbacks on transferring the request from our
submission queue to the execution queue, but if this is a bonded request
that the HW is waiting for, we will not submit it (as we wait for a
fresh execution) even though it is still being executed.

To resolve this issue, once we have executed a request, consider it
always ready for execution and allow the submit-fence to proceed.
Alternatively, we could check the actual inflight context very carefully
to see if the signaller currently executing.

Fixes: 22b7a426bbe1 ("drm/i915/execlists: Preempt-to-busy")
Testcase: igt/gem_exec_balancer/bonded-dual
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
---
 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c | 25 ++++++++++++-------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c
index e5aba6824e26..b59dd3606914 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c
@@ -186,6 +186,11 @@ static void irq_execute_cb_hook(struct irq_work *wrk)
 	irq_execute_cb(wrk);
 }
 
+static bool __request_has_executed(const struct i915_request *rq)
+{
+	return READ_ONCE(rq->execute_cb.first) == ERR_PTR(-1);
+}
+
 static void __notify_execute_cb(struct i915_request *rq)
 {
 	struct execute_cb *cb, *cn;
@@ -193,7 +198,7 @@ static void __notify_execute_cb(struct i915_request *rq)
 	lockdep_assert_held(&rq->lock);
 
 	GEM_BUG_ON(!i915_request_is_active(rq));
-	if (llist_empty(&rq->execute_cb))
+	if (__request_has_executed(rq))
 		return;
 
 	llist_for_each_entry_safe(cb, cn, rq->execute_cb.first, work.llnode)
@@ -209,7 +214,7 @@ static void __notify_execute_cb(struct i915_request *rq)
 	 * preempt-to-idle cycle on the target engine, all the while the
 	 * master execute_cb may refire.
 	 */
-	init_llist_head(&rq->execute_cb);
+	rq->execute_cb.first = ERR_PTR(-1);
 }
 
 static inline void
@@ -323,11 +328,7 @@ bool i915_request_retire(struct i915_request *rq)
 		GEM_BUG_ON(!atomic_read(&rq->engine->gt->rps.num_waiters));
 		atomic_dec(&rq->engine->gt->rps.num_waiters);
 	}
-	if (!test_bit(I915_FENCE_FLAG_ACTIVE, &rq->fence.flags)) {
-		set_bit(I915_FENCE_FLAG_ACTIVE, &rq->fence.flags);
-		__notify_execute_cb(rq);
-	}
-	GEM_BUG_ON(!llist_empty(&rq->execute_cb));
+	GEM_BUG_ON(!__request_has_executed(rq));
 	spin_unlock_irq(&rq->lock);
 
 	remove_from_client(rq);
@@ -372,7 +373,7 @@ __await_execution(struct i915_request *rq,
 {
 	struct execute_cb *cb;
 
-	if (i915_request_is_active(signal)) {
+	if (__request_has_executed(signal)) {
 		if (hook)
 			hook(rq, &signal->fence);
 		return 0;
@@ -393,7 +394,7 @@ __await_execution(struct i915_request *rq,
 	}
 
 	spin_lock_irq(&signal->lock);
-	if (i915_request_is_active(signal)) {
+	if (__request_has_executed(signal)) {
 		if (hook) {
 			hook(rq, &signal->fence);
 			i915_request_put(signal);
@@ -521,7 +522,7 @@ bool __i915_request_submit(struct i915_request *request)
 		clear_bit(I915_FENCE_FLAG_PQUEUE, &request->fence.flags);
 		__notify_execute_cb(request);
 	}
-	GEM_BUG_ON(!llist_empty(&request->execute_cb));
+	GEM_BUG_ON(!__request_has_executed(request));
 
 	if (test_bit(DMA_FENCE_FLAG_ENABLE_SIGNAL_BIT, &request->fence.flags) &&
 	    !test_bit(DMA_FENCE_FLAG_SIGNALED_BIT, &request->fence.flags) &&
@@ -709,8 +710,6 @@ static void __i915_request_ctor(void *arg)
 
 	rq->file_priv = NULL;
 	rq->capture_list = NULL;
-
-	init_llist_head(&rq->execute_cb);
 }
 
 struct i915_request *
@@ -798,9 +797,9 @@ __i915_request_create(struct intel_context *ce, gfp_t gfp)
 
 	/* No zalloc, everything must be cleared after use */
 	rq->batch = NULL;
+	rq->execute_cb.first = NULL;
 	GEM_BUG_ON(rq->file_priv);
 	GEM_BUG_ON(rq->capture_list);
-	GEM_BUG_ON(!llist_empty(&rq->execute_cb));
 
 	/*
 	 * Reserve space in the ring buffer for all the commands required to
-- 
2.20.1

_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

  reply	other threads:[~2020-05-29  8:58 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-05-29  8:58 [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915: Add a few asserts around handling of i915_request_is_active() Chris Wilson
2020-05-29  8:58 ` Chris Wilson [this message]
2020-05-29 10:09   ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2] drm/i915: Check for awaits on still currently executing requests Chris Wilson
2020-05-29 10:17   ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v3] " Chris Wilson
2020-05-29 12:28   ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v4] " Chris Wilson
2020-05-29 14:03     ` Chris Wilson
2020-05-29 14:39     ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2] " Chris Wilson
2020-05-29 16:01       ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2020-05-29  9:28 ` [Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success for series starting with [1/2] drm/i915: Add a few asserts around handling of i915_request_is_active() Patchwork
2020-05-29 10:31 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.IGT: failure " Patchwork
2020-05-29 10:44 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: failure for series starting with [1/2] drm/i915: Add a few asserts around handling of i915_request_is_active() (rev2) Patchwork
2020-05-29 11:33 ` [Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success for series starting with [1/2] drm/i915: Add a few asserts around handling of i915_request_is_active() (rev3) Patchwork
2020-05-29 12:54 ` [Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.IGT: " Patchwork
2020-05-29 13:18 ` [Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success for series starting with [1/2] drm/i915: Add a few asserts around handling of i915_request_is_active() (rev4) Patchwork
2020-05-29 13:57 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915: Add a few asserts around handling of i915_request_is_active() Tvrtko Ursulin
2020-05-29 14:44 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.IGT: failure for series starting with [1/2] drm/i915: Add a few asserts around handling of i915_request_is_active() (rev4) Patchwork
2020-05-29 15:24 ` [Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success for series starting with [1/2] drm/i915: Add a few asserts around handling of i915_request_is_active() (rev5) Patchwork
2020-05-29 17:42 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.IGT: failure " Patchwork
2020-05-29 17:46 ` [Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success for series starting with [1/2] drm/i915: Add a few asserts around handling of i915_request_is_active() (rev6) Patchwork
2020-05-29 20:07 ` [Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.IGT: " Patchwork

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20200529085809.23691-2-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk \
    --to=chris@chris-wilson.co.uk \
    --cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.