From: "Christian König" <christian.koenig@amd.com>
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>,
DRI Development <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>
Cc: Andrey Grodzovsky <andrey.grodzovsky@amd.com>,
Intel Graphics Development <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
Steven Price <steven.price@arm.com>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>,
Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v4 02/18] drm/sched: Barriers are needed for entity->last_scheduled
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2021 08:35:04 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2cd9df9e-08e5-d0bd-d4d3-aed00f699e4a@amd.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210712175352.802687-3-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
Am 12.07.21 um 19:53 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
> It might be good enough on x86 with just READ_ONCE, but the write side
> should then at least be WRITE_ONCE because x86 has total store order.
>
> It's definitely not enough on arm.
>
> Fix this proplery, which means
> - explain the need for the barrier in both places
> - point at the other side in each comment
>
> Also pull out the !sched_list case as the first check, so that the
> code flow is clearer.
>
> While at it sprinkle some comments around because it was very
> non-obvious to me what's actually going on here and why.
>
> Note that we really need full barriers here, at first I thought
> store-release and load-acquire on ->last_scheduled would be enough,
> but we actually requiring ordering between that and the queue state.
>
> v2: Put smp_rmp() in the right place and fix up comment (Andrey)
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>
> Cc: "Christian König" <christian.koenig@amd.com>
> Cc: Steven Price <steven.price@arm.com>
> Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
> Cc: Andrey Grodzovsky <andrey.grodzovsky@amd.com>
> Cc: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
> Cc: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@collabora.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c
> index f7347c284886..89e3f6eaf519 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c
> @@ -439,8 +439,16 @@ struct drm_sched_job *drm_sched_entity_pop_job(struct drm_sched_entity *entity)
> dma_fence_set_error(&sched_job->s_fence->finished, -ECANCELED);
>
> dma_fence_put(entity->last_scheduled);
> +
> entity->last_scheduled = dma_fence_get(&sched_job->s_fence->finished);
>
> + /*
> + * If the queue is empty we allow drm_sched_entity_select_rq() to
> + * locklessly access ->last_scheduled. This only works if we set the
> + * pointer before we dequeue and if we a write barrier here.
> + */
> + smp_wmb();
> +
Again, conceptual those barriers should be part of the spsc_queue
container and not externally.
Regards,
Christian.
> spsc_queue_pop(&entity->job_queue);
> return sched_job;
> }
> @@ -459,10 +467,25 @@ void drm_sched_entity_select_rq(struct drm_sched_entity *entity)
> struct drm_gpu_scheduler *sched;
> struct drm_sched_rq *rq;
>
> - if (spsc_queue_count(&entity->job_queue) || !entity->sched_list)
> + /* single possible engine and already selected */
> + if (!entity->sched_list)
> + return;
> +
> + /* queue non-empty, stay on the same engine */
> + if (spsc_queue_count(&entity->job_queue))
> return;
>
> - fence = READ_ONCE(entity->last_scheduled);
> + /*
> + * Only when the queue is empty are we guaranteed that the scheduler
> + * thread cannot change ->last_scheduled. To enforce ordering we need
> + * a read barrier here. See drm_sched_entity_pop_job() for the other
> + * side.
> + */
> + smp_rmb();
> +
> + fence = entity->last_scheduled;
> +
> + /* stay on the same engine if the previous job hasn't finished */
> if (fence && !dma_fence_is_signaled(fence))
> return;
>
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-07-13 6:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 47+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-07-12 17:53 [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v4 00/18] drm/sched dependency tracking and dma-resv fixes Daniel Vetter
2021-07-12 17:53 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v4 01/18] drm/sched: Split drm_sched_job_init Daniel Vetter
2021-07-12 20:22 ` Emma Anholt
2021-07-13 6:40 ` Christian König
2021-07-13 6:53 ` Daniel Vetter
2021-07-12 17:53 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v4 02/18] drm/sched: Barriers are needed for entity->last_scheduled Daniel Vetter
2021-07-13 6:35 ` Christian König [this message]
2021-07-13 6:50 ` Daniel Vetter
2021-07-13 7:25 ` Christian König
2021-07-13 9:10 ` Daniel Vetter
2021-07-13 11:20 ` Christian König
2021-07-13 16:11 ` Andrey Grodzovsky
2021-07-13 16:45 ` Daniel Vetter
2021-07-14 22:12 ` Andrey Grodzovsky
2021-07-15 10:16 ` Daniel Vetter
2021-07-12 17:53 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v4 03/18] drm/sched: Add dependency tracking Daniel Vetter
2021-07-27 11:09 ` Daniel Vetter
2021-07-28 11:28 ` [Intel-gfx] [Linaro-mm-sig] " Christian König
2021-07-28 12:09 ` Daniel Vetter
2021-07-28 12:46 ` Christian König
2021-07-28 15:20 ` Melissa Wen
2021-07-12 17:53 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v4 04/18] drm/sched: drop entity parameter from drm_sched_push_job Daniel Vetter
2021-07-12 17:53 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v4 05/18] drm/sched: improve docs around drm_sched_entity Daniel Vetter
2021-07-12 17:53 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v4 06/18] drm/panfrost: use scheduler dependency tracking Daniel Vetter
2021-07-12 17:53 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v4 07/18] drm/lima: " Daniel Vetter
2021-07-12 17:53 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v4 08/18] drm/v3d: Move drm_sched_job_init to v3d_job_init Daniel Vetter
2021-07-14 9:34 ` Melissa Wen
2021-07-12 17:53 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v4 09/18] drm/v3d: Use scheduler dependency handling Daniel Vetter
2021-07-14 9:37 ` Melissa Wen
2021-07-12 17:53 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v4 10/18] drm/etnaviv: " Daniel Vetter
2021-07-12 17:53 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v4 11/18] drm/gem: Delete gem array fencing helpers Daniel Vetter
2021-07-12 17:53 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v4 12/18] drm/sched: Don't store self-dependencies Daniel Vetter
2021-07-12 17:53 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v4 13/18] drm/sched: Check locking in drm_sched_job_await_implicit Daniel Vetter
2021-07-12 17:53 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v4 14/18] drm/msm: Don't break exclusive fence ordering Daniel Vetter
2021-07-13 16:55 ` Rob Clark
2021-07-13 16:58 ` Daniel Vetter
2021-07-13 17:46 ` Rob Clark
2021-07-13 17:45 ` Daniel Vetter
2021-07-12 17:53 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v4 15/18] drm/etnaviv: " Daniel Vetter
2021-07-12 17:53 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v4 16/18] drm/i915: delete exclude argument from i915_sw_fence_await_reservation Daniel Vetter
2021-07-12 17:53 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v4 17/18] drm/i915: Don't break exclusive fence ordering Daniel Vetter
2021-07-12 17:53 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v4 18/18] dma-resv: Give the docs a do-over Daniel Vetter
2021-07-12 20:47 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.CHECKPATCH: warning for drm/sched dependency tracking and dma-resv fixes (rev3) Patchwork
2021-07-12 21:13 ` [Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success " Patchwork
2021-07-12 23:43 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.IGT: failure " Patchwork
2021-07-27 11:51 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v4 00/18] drm/sched dependency tracking and dma-resv fixes Boris Brezillon
2021-07-27 14:47 ` Melissa Wen
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=2cd9df9e-08e5-d0bd-d4d3-aed00f699e4a@amd.com \
--to=christian.koenig@amd.com \
--cc=andrey.grodzovsky@amd.com \
--cc=daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch \
--cc=daniel.vetter@intel.com \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=lee.jones@linaro.org \
--cc=steven.price@arm.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).