On 10/06/2021 14:57, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 5:04 AM Tvrtko Ursulin
<tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 09/06/2021 22:29, Jason Ekstrand wrote:
This appears to break encapsulation by moving an intel_engine_cs
function to a i915_request file. However, this function is
intrinsically tied to the lifetime rules and allocation scheme of
i915_request and having it in intel_engine_cs.c leaks details of
i915_request. We have an abstraction leak either way. Since
i915_request's allocation scheme is far more subtle than the simple
pointer that is intel_engine_cs.request_pool, it's probably better to
keep i915_request's details to itself.
Signed-off-by: Jason Ekstrand <jason@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Jon Bloomfield <jon.bloomfield@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Matthew Auld <matthew.auld@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_cs.c | 8 --------
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c | 7 +++++--
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.h | 2 --
3 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_cs.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_cs.c
index 9ceddfbb1687d..df6b80ec84199 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_cs.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_cs.c
@@ -422,14 +422,6 @@ void intel_engines_release(struct intel_gt *gt)
}
}
-void intel_engine_free_request_pool(struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
-{
- if (!engine->request_pool)
- return;
-
- kmem_cache_free(i915_request_slab_cache(), engine->request_pool);
Argument that the slab cache shouldn't be exported from i915_request.c
sounds good to me.
But I think step better than simply reversing the break of encapsulation
(And it's even worse because it leaks much higher level object!) could
be to export a freeing helper from i915_request.c, engine pool would
then use:
void __i915_request_free(...)
{
kmem_cache_free(...);
}
That was what I did at first. However, the semantics of how the
pointer is touched/modified are really also part of i915_request. In
particular, the use of xchg and cmpxchg. So I pulled the one other
access (besides NULL initializing) into i915_request.c which meant
pulling in intel_engine_free_request_pool.
Hmmm in my view the only break of encapsulation at the moment is that
intel_engine_cs.c knows requests have been allocated from a dedicated slab.
Semantics of how the request pool pointer is managed, so xchg and
cmpxchg, already are in i915_request.c so I don't exactly follow what is
the problem with wrapping the knowledge on how requests should be freed
inside i915_request.c as well?
Unless you view the fact intel_engine_cs contains a pointer to
i915_request a break as well? But even then... <continued below>
Really, if we wanted proper encapsulation here, we'd have
struct i915_request_cache {
struct i915_request *rq;
};
void i915_request_cache_init(struct i915_request_cache *cache);
void i915_request_cache_finish(struct i915_request_cache *cache);
all in i915_request.h and have all the gory details inside
i915_request.c. Then all intel_engine_cs knows is that it has a > request cache.
... with this scheme you'd have intel_engine_cs contain a pointer to
i915_request_cache, which does not seem particularly exciting
improvement for me since wrapping would be extremely thin with no
fundamental changes.
So for me exporting new __i915_request_free() from i915_request.c makes
things a bit better and I don't think we need to go further than that.
I mean there is the issue of i915_request.c knowing about engines having
request pools, but I am not sure if with i915_request_cache you proposed
to remove that knowledge and how?
From the design point of view, given request pool is used only for
engine pm, clean design could be to manage this from engine pm. Like if
parking cannot use GFP_KERNEL then check if unparking can and explicitly
allocate a request from there to be consumed at parking time. It may
require some splitting of the request creation path though. To allocate
but not put it on the kernel timeline until park time.
Regards,
Tvrtko
If we really want to go that far, we can, I suppose.
--Jason
Regards,
Tvrtko
-}
-
void intel_engines_free(struct intel_gt *gt)
{
struct intel_engine_cs *engine;
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c
index 1014c71cf7f52..48c5f8527854b 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c
@@ -106,9 +106,12 @@ static signed long i915_fence_wait(struct dma_fence *fence,
timeout);
}
-struct kmem_cache *i915_request_slab_cache(void)
+void intel_engine_free_request_pool(struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
{
- return global.slab_requests;
+ if (!engine->request_pool)
+ return;
+
+ kmem_cache_free(global.slab_requests, engine->request_pool);
}
static void i915_fence_release(struct dma_fence *fence)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.h
index 270f6cd37650c..f84c38d29f988 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.h
@@ -300,8 +300,6 @@ static inline bool dma_fence_is_i915(const struct dma_fence *fence)
return fence->ops == &i915_fence_ops;
}
-struct kmem_cache *i915_request_slab_cache(void);
-
struct i915_request * __must_check
__i915_request_create(struct intel_context *ce, gfp_t gfp);
struct i915_request * __must_check
