On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 02:21:42PM +0200, Michal Wajdeczko wrote:
>
>
> On 06.05.2021 21:13, Matthew Brost wrote:
> > Add non blocking CTB send function, intel_guc_send_nb. In order to
> > support a non blocking CTB send function a spin lock is needed to
>
> spin lock was added in 16/97
>
> > protect the CTB descriptors fields. Also the non blocking call must not
> > update the fence value as this value is owned by the blocking call
> > (intel_guc_send).
>
> all H2G messages are using "fence", nb variant also needs to update it
>
> >
> > The blocking CTB now must have a flow control mechanism to ensure the
>
> s/blocking/non-blocking
>
Will fix the comments as these are a bit stale.
> > buffer isn't overrun. A lazy spin wait is used as we believe the flow
> > control condition should be rare with properly sized buffer.
>
> as this new nb function is still not used in this patch, then maybe
> better to move flow control to separate patch for easier review ?
>
You can't do non-blocking without flow control, it just doesn't work.
IMO that makes the review harder.
> >
> > The function, intel_guc_send_nb, is exported in this patch but unused.
> > Several patches later in the series make use of this function.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc.h | 12 ++-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_ct.c | 96 +++++++++++++++++++++--
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_ct.h | 7 +-
> > 3 files changed, 105 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc.h
> > index c20f3839de12..4c0a367e41d8 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc.h
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc.h
> > @@ -75,7 +75,15 @@ static inline struct intel_guc *log_to_guc(struct intel_guc_log *log)
> > static
> > inline int intel_guc_send(struct intel_guc *guc, const u32 *action, u32 len)
> > {
> > - return intel_guc_ct_send(&guc->ct, action, len, NULL, 0);
> > + return intel_guc_ct_send(&guc->ct, action, len, NULL, 0, 0);
> > +}
> > +
> > +#define INTEL_GUC_SEND_NB BIT(31)
> > +static
> > +inline int intel_guc_send_nb(struct intel_guc *guc, const u32 *action, u32 len)
> > +{
> > + return intel_guc_ct_send(&guc->ct, action, len, NULL, 0,
> > + INTEL_GUC_SEND_NB);
> > }
> >
> > static inline int
> > @@ -83,7 +91,7 @@ intel_guc_send_and_receive(struct intel_guc *guc, const u32 *action, u32 len,
> > u32 *response_buf, u32 response_buf_size)
> > {
> > return intel_guc_ct_send(&guc->ct, action, len,
> > - response_buf, response_buf_size);
> > + response_buf, response_buf_size, 0);
> > }
> >
> > static inline void intel_guc_to_host_event_handler(struct intel_guc *guc)
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_ct.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_ct.c
> > index a76603537fa8..af7314d45a78 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_ct.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_ct.c
> > @@ -3,6 +3,11 @@
> > * Copyright © 2016-2019 Intel Corporation
> > */
> >
> > +#include <linux/circ_buf.h>
> > +#include <linux/ktime.h>
> > +#include <linux/time64.h>
> > +#include <linux/timekeeping.h>
> > +
> > #include "i915_drv.h"
> > #include "intel_guc_ct.h"
> > #include "gt/intel_gt.h"
> > @@ -308,6 +313,7 @@ int intel_guc_ct_enable(struct intel_guc_ct *ct)
> > if (unlikely(err))
> > goto err_deregister;
> >
> > + ct->requests.last_fence = 1;
>
> not needed
>
Yep.
> > ct->enabled = true;
> >
> > return 0;
> > @@ -343,10 +349,22 @@ static u32 ct_get_next_fence(struct intel_guc_ct *ct)
> > return ++ct->requests.last_fence;
> > }
> >
> > +static void write_barrier(struct intel_guc_ct *ct) {
> > + struct intel_guc *guc = ct_to_guc(ct);
> > + struct intel_gt *gt = guc_to_gt(guc);
> > +
> > + if (i915_gem_object_is_lmem(guc->ct.vma->obj)) {
> > + GEM_BUG_ON(guc->send_regs.fw_domains);
> > + intel_uncore_write_fw(gt->uncore, GEN11_SOFT_SCRATCH(0), 0);
> > + } else {
> > + wmb();
> > + }
> > +}
>
> this chunk seems to be good candidate for separate patch that could be
> introduced earlier
>
Yes. Will include patches 3-20 post as this technically is required once
the mutex is removed.
> > +
> > static int ct_write(struct intel_guc_ct *ct,
> > const u32 *action,
> > u32 len /* in dwords */,
> > - u32 fence)
> > + u32 fence, u32 flags)
> > {
> > struct intel_guc_ct_buffer *ctb = &ct->ctbs.send;
> > struct guc_ct_buffer_desc *desc = ctb->desc;
> > @@ -393,9 +411,13 @@ static int ct_write(struct intel_guc_ct *ct,
> > FIELD_PREP(GUC_CTB_MSG_0_NUM_DWORDS, len) |
> > FIELD_PREP(GUC_CTB_MSG_0_FENCE, fence);
> >
> > - hxg = FIELD_PREP(GUC_HXG_MSG_0_TYPE, GUC_HXG_TYPE_REQUEST) |
> > - FIELD_PREP(GUC_HXG_REQUEST_MSG_0_ACTION |
> > - GUC_HXG_REQUEST_MSG_0_DATA0, action[0]);
> > + hxg = (flags & INTEL_GUC_SEND_NB) ?
> > + (FIELD_PREP(GUC_HXG_MSG_0_TYPE, GUC_HXG_TYPE_EVENT) |
> > + FIELD_PREP(GUC_HXG_EVENT_MSG_0_ACTION |
> > + GUC_HXG_EVENT_MSG_0_DATA0, action[0])) :
> > + (FIELD_PREP(GUC_HXG_MSG_0_TYPE, GUC_HXG_TYPE_REQUEST) |
> > + FIELD_PREP(GUC_HXG_REQUEST_MSG_0_ACTION |
> > + GUC_HXG_REQUEST_MSG_0_DATA0, action[0]));
> >
> > CT_DEBUG(ct, "writing (tail %u) %*ph %*ph %*ph\n",
> > tail, 4, &header, 4, &hxg, 4 * (len - 1), &action[1]);
> > @@ -412,6 +434,12 @@ static int ct_write(struct intel_guc_ct *ct,
> > }
> > GEM_BUG_ON(tail > size);
> >
> > + /*
> > + * make sure H2G buffer update and LRC tail update (if this triggering a
> > + * submission) are visable before updating the descriptor tail
>
> typo
>
> > + */
> > + write_barrier(ct);
> > +
> > /* now update descriptor */
> > WRITE_ONCE(desc->tail, tail);
> >
> > @@ -466,6 +494,46 @@ static int wait_for_ct_request_update(struct ct_request *req, u32 *status)
> > return err;
> > }
> >
> > +static inline bool ctb_has_room(struct intel_guc_ct_buffer *ctb, u32 len_dw)
> > +{
> > + struct guc_ct_buffer_desc *desc = ctb->desc;
> > + u32 head = READ_ONCE(desc->head);
> > + u32 space;
> > +
> > + space = CIRC_SPACE(desc->tail, head, ctb->size);
>
> shouldn't we use READ_ONCE for reading the tail?
>
I don't think so. The above READ_ONCE should be sufficient as a barrier.
> > +
> > + return space >= len_dw;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int ct_send_nb(struct intel_guc_ct *ct,
> > + const u32 *action,
> > + u32 len,
> > + u32 flags)
> > +{
> > + struct intel_guc_ct_buffer *ctb = &ct->ctbs.send;
> > + unsigned long spin_flags;
> > + u32 fence;
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + spin_lock_irqsave(&ctb->lock, spin_flags);
> > +
> > + ret = ctb_has_room(ctb, len + 1);
>
> why +1 ?
The header is 2 DWs while the action array only include 1 DW for the
action field which is stuffed into the header.
>
> > + if (unlikely(ret))
> > + goto out;
> > +
> > + fence = ct_get_next_fence(ct);
> > + ret = ct_write(ct, action, len, fence, flags);
> > + if (unlikely(ret))
> > + goto out;
> > +
> > + intel_guc_notify(ct_to_guc(ct));
> > +
> > +out:
> > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ctb->lock, spin_flags);
> > +
> > + return ret;
> > +}
> > +
> > static int ct_send(struct intel_guc_ct *ct,
> > const u32 *action,
> > u32 len,
> > @@ -473,6 +541,7 @@ static int ct_send(struct intel_guc_ct *ct,
> > u32 response_buf_size,
> > u32 *status)
> > {
> > + struct intel_guc_ct_buffer *ctb = &ct->ctbs.send;
> > struct ct_request request;
> > unsigned long flags;
> > u32 fence;
> > @@ -482,8 +551,20 @@ static int ct_send(struct intel_guc_ct *ct,
> > GEM_BUG_ON(!len);
> > GEM_BUG_ON(len & ~GUC_CT_MSG_LEN_MASK);
> > GEM_BUG_ON(!response_buf && response_buf_size);
> > + might_sleep();
> >
> > + /*
> > + * We use a lazy spin wait loop here as we believe that if the CT
> > + * buffers are sized correctly the flow control condition should be
> > + * rare.
> > + */
> > +retry:
> > spin_lock_irqsave(&ct->ctbs.send.lock, flags);
> > + if (unlikely(!ctb_has_room(ctb, len + 1))) {
>
> why +1 ?
>
Same as above.
> > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ct->ctbs.send.lock, flags);
> > + cond_resched();
> > + goto retry;
> > + }
>
> hmm, full CTB can also be seen in case of nb, but it looks that only in
> case of blocking call you want to use lazy spin, why ?
>
Blocking calls are rare + no having credits is rare. No need to over
engineering the wait.
> also, what if situation is not improving ?
> will we be looping here forever ?
>
Nope, see the following patch:
https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/432325/?series=89844&rev=1
> >
> > fence = ct_get_next_fence(ct);
> > request.fence = fence;
> > @@ -495,7 +576,7 @@ static int ct_send(struct intel_guc_ct *ct,
> > list_add_tail(&request.link, &ct->requests.pending);
> > spin_unlock(&ct->requests.lock);
> >
> > - err = ct_write(ct, action, len, fence);
> > + err = ct_write(ct, action, len, fence, 0);
> >
> > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ct->ctbs.send.lock, flags);
> >
> > @@ -537,7 +618,7 @@ static int ct_send(struct intel_guc_ct *ct,
> > * Command Transport (CT) buffer based GuC send function.
> > */
> > int intel_guc_ct_send(struct intel_guc_ct *ct, const u32 *action, u32 len,
> > - u32 *response_buf, u32 response_buf_size)
> > + u32 *response_buf, u32 response_buf_size, u32 flags)
> > {
> > u32 status = ~0; /* undefined */
> > int ret;
> > @@ -547,6 +628,9 @@ int intel_guc_ct_send(struct intel_guc_ct *ct, const u32 *action, u32 len,
> > return -ENODEV;
> > }
> >
> > + if (flags & INTEL_GUC_SEND_NB)
> > + return ct_send_nb(ct, action, len, flags);
> > +
> > ret = ct_send(ct, action, len, response_buf, response_buf_size, &status);
> > if (unlikely(ret < 0)) {
> > CT_ERROR(ct, "Sending action %#x failed (err=%d status=%#X)\n",
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_ct.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_ct.h
> > index 1ae2dde6db93..55ef7c52472f 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_ct.h
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_ct.h
> > @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@
> > #include <linux/interrupt.h>
> > #include <linux/spinlock.h>
> > #include <linux/workqueue.h>
> > +#include <linux/ktime.h>
> >
> > #include "intel_guc_fwif.h"
> >
> > @@ -42,7 +43,6 @@ struct intel_guc_ct_buffer {
> > bool broken;
> > };
> >
> > -
> > /** Top-level structure for Command Transport related data
> > *
> > * Includes a pair of CT buffers for bi-directional communication and tracking
> > @@ -69,6 +69,9 @@ struct intel_guc_ct {
> > struct list_head incoming; /* incoming requests */
> > struct work_struct worker; /* handler for incoming requests */
> > } requests;
> > +
> > + /** @stall_time: time of first time a CTB submission is stalled */
> > + ktime_t stall_time;
>
> this should be introduced in 37/97
>
Yep.
Matt
> > };
> >
> > void intel_guc_ct_init_early(struct intel_guc_ct *ct);
> > @@ -88,7 +91,7 @@ static inline bool intel_guc_ct_enabled(struct intel_guc_ct *ct)
> > }
> >
> > int intel_guc_ct_send(struct intel_guc_ct *ct, const u32 *action, u32 len,
> > - u32 *response_buf, u32 response_buf_size);
> > + u32 *response_buf, u32 response_buf_size, u32 flags);
> > void intel_guc_ct_event_handler(struct intel_guc_ct *ct);
> >
> > #endif /* _INTEL_GUC_CT_H_ */
> >
