On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 10:36:49AM -0400, Luben Tuikov wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2023-09-19 01:01, Matthew Brost wrote:
> > DRM_SCHED_POLICY_SINGLE_ENTITY creates a 1 to 1 relationship between
> > scheduler and entity. No priorities or run queue used in this mode.
> > Intended for devices with firmware schedulers.
> >
> > v2:
> > - Drop sched / rq union (Luben)
> > v3:
> > - Don't pick entity if stopped in drm_sched_select_entity (Danilo)
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c | 69 ++++++++++++++++++------
> > drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_fence.c | 2 +-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c | 64 +++++++++++++++++++---
> > include/drm/gpu_scheduler.h | 8 +++
> > 4 files changed, 120 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c
> > index cf42e2265d64..437c50867c99 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c
> > @@ -83,6 +83,7 @@ int drm_sched_entity_init(struct drm_sched_entity *entity,
> > memset(entity, 0, sizeof(struct drm_sched_entity));
> > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&entity->list);
> > entity->rq = NULL;
> > + entity->single_sched = NULL;
> > entity->guilty = guilty;
> > entity->num_sched_list = num_sched_list;
> > entity->priority = priority;
> > @@ -90,8 +91,17 @@ int drm_sched_entity_init(struct drm_sched_entity *entity,
> > RCU_INIT_POINTER(entity->last_scheduled, NULL);
> > RB_CLEAR_NODE(&entity->rb_tree_node);
> >
> > - if(num_sched_list)
> > - entity->rq = &sched_list[0]->sched_rq[entity->priority];
> > + if (num_sched_list) {
> > + if (sched_list[0]->sched_policy !=
> > + DRM_SCHED_POLICY_SINGLE_ENTITY) {
> > + entity->rq = &sched_list[0]->sched_rq[entity->priority];
> > + } else {
> > + if (num_sched_list != 1 || sched_list[0]->single_entity)
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + sched_list[0]->single_entity = entity;
> > + entity->single_sched = sched_list[0];
> > + }
> > + }
>
> So much (checking for) negativity...:-)
> Perhaps the simplified form below?
>
> if (num_sched_list) {
> if (sched_list[0]->sched_policy !=
> DRM_SCHED_POLICY_SINGLE_ENTITY) {
> entity->rq = &sched_list[0]->sched_rq[entity->priority];
> } else if (num_sched_list == 1 && !sched_list[0]->single_entity) {
> sched_list[0]->single_entity = entity;
> entity->single_sched = sched_list[0];
> } else {
> return -EINVAL;
> }
> }
>
Will change.
> >
> > init_completion(&entity->entity_idle);
> >
> > @@ -124,7 +134,8 @@ void drm_sched_entity_modify_sched(struct drm_sched_entity *entity,
> > struct drm_gpu_scheduler **sched_list,
> > unsigned int num_sched_list)
> > {
> > - WARN_ON(!num_sched_list || !sched_list);
> > + WARN_ON(!num_sched_list || !sched_list ||
> > + !!entity->single_sched);
> >
> > entity->sched_list = sched_list;
> > entity->num_sched_list = num_sched_list;
> > @@ -231,13 +242,15 @@ static void drm_sched_entity_kill(struct drm_sched_entity *entity)
> > {
> > struct drm_sched_job *job;
> > struct dma_fence *prev;
> > + bool single_entity = !!entity->single_sched;
> >
> > - if (!entity->rq)
> > + if (!entity->rq && !single_entity)
> > return;
> >
> > spin_lock(&entity->rq_lock);
> > entity->stopped = true;
> > - drm_sched_rq_remove_entity(entity->rq, entity);
> > + if (!single_entity)
> > + drm_sched_rq_remove_entity(entity->rq, entity);
> > spin_unlock(&entity->rq_lock);
> >
> > /* Make sure this entity is not used by the scheduler at the moment */
> > @@ -259,6 +272,20 @@ static void drm_sched_entity_kill(struct drm_sched_entity *entity)
> > dma_fence_put(prev);
> > }
> >
> > +/**
> > + * drm_sched_entity_to_scheduler - Schedule entity to GPU scheduler
>
> Please use verbs. Please?
>
> Fix:
> /**
> * drm_sched_entity_to_scheduler - Map a schedule entity to a GPU scheduler
>
> > + * @entity: scheduler entity
> > + *
> > + * Returns GPU scheduler for the entity
>
> Fix:
> * Given an entity, return its GPU scheduler.
>
Yep.
> > + */
> > +struct drm_gpu_scheduler *
> > +drm_sched_entity_to_scheduler(struct drm_sched_entity *entity)
> > +{
> > + bool single_entity = !!entity->single_sched;
> > +
> > + return single_entity ? entity->single_sched : entity->rq->sched;
> > +}
> > +
> > /**
> > * drm_sched_entity_flush - Flush a context entity
> > *
> > @@ -276,11 +303,12 @@ long drm_sched_entity_flush(struct drm_sched_entity *entity, long timeout)
> > struct drm_gpu_scheduler *sched;
> > struct task_struct *last_user;
> > long ret = timeout;
> > + bool single_entity = !!entity->single_sched;
> >
> > - if (!entity->rq)
> > + if (!entity->rq && !single_entity)
> > return 0;
> >
> > - sched = entity->rq->sched;
> > + sched = drm_sched_entity_to_scheduler(entity);
> > /**
> > * The client will not queue more IBs during this fini, consume existing
> > * queued IBs or discard them on SIGKILL
> > @@ -373,7 +401,7 @@ static void drm_sched_entity_wakeup(struct dma_fence *f,
> > container_of(cb, struct drm_sched_entity, cb);
> >
> > drm_sched_entity_clear_dep(f, cb);
> > - drm_sched_wakeup_if_can_queue(entity->rq->sched);
> > + drm_sched_wakeup_if_can_queue(drm_sched_entity_to_scheduler(entity));
> > }
> >
> > /**
> > @@ -387,6 +415,8 @@ static void drm_sched_entity_wakeup(struct dma_fence *f,
> > void drm_sched_entity_set_priority(struct drm_sched_entity *entity,
> > enum drm_sched_priority priority)
> > {
> > + WARN_ON(!!entity->single_sched);
> > +
> > spin_lock(&entity->rq_lock);
> > entity->priority = priority;
> > spin_unlock(&entity->rq_lock);
> > @@ -399,7 +429,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_sched_entity_set_priority);
> > */
> > static bool drm_sched_entity_add_dependency_cb(struct drm_sched_entity *entity)
> > {
> > - struct drm_gpu_scheduler *sched = entity->rq->sched;
> > + struct drm_gpu_scheduler *sched = drm_sched_entity_to_scheduler(entity);
> > struct dma_fence *fence = entity->dependency;
> > struct drm_sched_fence *s_fence;
> >
> > @@ -501,7 +531,8 @@ struct drm_sched_job *drm_sched_entity_pop_job(struct drm_sched_entity *entity)
> > * Update the entity's location in the min heap according to
> > * the timestamp of the next job, if any.
> > */
> > - if (entity->rq->sched->sched_policy == DRM_SCHED_POLICY_FIFO) {
> > + if (drm_sched_entity_to_scheduler(entity)->sched_policy ==
> > + DRM_SCHED_POLICY_FIFO) {
> > struct drm_sched_job *next;
> >
> > next = to_drm_sched_job(spsc_queue_peek(&entity->job_queue));
> > @@ -524,6 +555,8 @@ void drm_sched_entity_select_rq(struct drm_sched_entity *entity)
> > struct drm_gpu_scheduler *sched;
> > struct drm_sched_rq *rq;
> >
> > + WARN_ON(!!entity->single_sched);
> > +
> > /* single possible engine and already selected */
> > if (!entity->sched_list)
> > return;
> > @@ -573,12 +606,13 @@ void drm_sched_entity_select_rq(struct drm_sched_entity *entity)
> > void drm_sched_entity_push_job(struct drm_sched_job *sched_job)
> > {
> > struct drm_sched_entity *entity = sched_job->entity;
> > - bool first, fifo = entity->rq->sched->sched_policy ==
> > - DRM_SCHED_POLICY_FIFO;
> > + bool single_entity = !!entity->single_sched;
> > + bool first;
> > ktime_t submit_ts;
> >
> > trace_drm_sched_job(sched_job, entity);
> > - atomic_inc(entity->rq->sched->score);
> > + if (!single_entity)
> > + atomic_inc(entity->rq->sched->score);
> > WRITE_ONCE(entity->last_user, current->group_leader);
> >
> > /*
> > @@ -591,6 +625,10 @@ void drm_sched_entity_push_job(struct drm_sched_job *sched_job)
> >
> > /* first job wakes up scheduler */
> > if (first) {
> > + struct drm_gpu_scheduler *sched =
> > + drm_sched_entity_to_scheduler(entity);
> > + bool fifo = sched->sched_policy == DRM_SCHED_POLICY_FIFO;
> > +
> > /* Add the entity to the run queue */
> > spin_lock(&entity->rq_lock);
> > if (entity->stopped) {
> > @@ -600,13 +638,14 @@ void drm_sched_entity_push_job(struct drm_sched_job *sched_job)
> > return;
> > }
> >
> > - drm_sched_rq_add_entity(entity->rq, entity);
> > + if (!single_entity)
> > + drm_sched_rq_add_entity(entity->rq, entity);
> > spin_unlock(&entity->rq_lock);
> >
> > if (fifo)
> > drm_sched_rq_update_fifo(entity, submit_ts);
> >
> > - drm_sched_wakeup_if_can_queue(entity->rq->sched);
> > + drm_sched_wakeup_if_can_queue(sched);
> > }
> > }
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_sched_entity_push_job);
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_fence.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_fence.c
> > index 06cedfe4b486..f6b926f5e188 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_fence.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_fence.c
> > @@ -225,7 +225,7 @@ void drm_sched_fence_init(struct drm_sched_fence *fence,
> > {
> > unsigned seq;
> >
> > - fence->sched = entity->rq->sched;
> > + fence->sched = drm_sched_entity_to_scheduler(entity);
> > seq = atomic_inc_return(&entity->fence_seq);
> > dma_fence_init(&fence->scheduled, &drm_sched_fence_ops_scheduled,
> > &fence->lock, entity->fence_context, seq);
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c
> > index f645f32977ed..588c735f7498 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c
> > @@ -32,7 +32,8 @@
> > * backend operations to the scheduler like submitting a job to hardware run queue,
> > * returning the dependencies of a job etc.
> > *
> > - * The organisation of the scheduler is the following:
> > + * The organisation of the scheduler is the following for scheduling policies
> > + * DRM_SCHED_POLICY_RR and DRM_SCHED_POLICY_FIFO:
>
> Yes, so this was badly written to begin with. If we're adding more information,
> I'd write:
>
> * For scheduling policies DRM_SCHED_POLICY_RR and DRM_SCHED_POLICY_FIFO,
> * the scheduler organization is,
Yep.
>
> > *
> > * 1. Each hw run queue has one scheduler
> > * 2. Each scheduler has multiple run queues with different priorities
> > @@ -43,6 +44,23 @@
> > *
> > * The jobs in a entity are always scheduled in the order that they were pushed.
> > *
> > + * The organisation of the scheduler is the following for scheduling policy
> > + * DRM_SCHED_POLICY_SINGLE_ENTITY:
>
> Remember, it's a list, on large enough scale, thus,
>
> * For DRM_SCHED_POLICY_SINGLE_ENTITY, the organization of the scheduler is,
>
> > + *
> > + * 1. One to one relationship between scheduler and entity
> > + * 2. No priorities implemented per scheduler (single job queue)
> > + * 3. No run queues in scheduler rather jobs are directly dequeued from entity
> > + * 4. The entity maintains a queue of jobs that will be scheduled on the
> > + * hardware
>
> Good! But please fix,
>
> 4. The entity maintains a queue of jobs that will be scheduler _to_ the hardware.
>
> > + *
> > + * The jobs in a entity are always scheduled in the order that they were pushed
> > + * regardless of scheduling policy.
>
> Please add here,
> Single-entity scheduling is essentially a FIFO for jobs.
>
> > + *
> > + * A policy of DRM_SCHED_POLICY_RR or DRM_SCHED_POLICY_FIFO is expected to used
>
> "... is expected to _be_ used ..."
>
> > + * when the KMD is scheduling directly on the hardware while a scheduling policy
>
> I'd spell out "kernel-mode driver" since it makes it terse when reading a processed
> DOC format, and having a three-letter abbreviation spelled out makes for an easier
> reading experience. (There are too many three-letter abbreviations as is...)
>
> "... directly _to_ the hardware ..." since, ultimately, the DRM scheduler just
> pushes jobs to be executed to the hardware by the hardware and doesn't support
> or control hardware preemption of jobs _on_ the hardware. (See what I did there? :-) )
>
> > + * of DRM_SCHED_POLICY_SINGLE_ENTITY is expected to be used when there is a
> > + * firmware scheduler.
> > + *
>
> Yeah, so that's a good explanation--thanks for writing this.
>
> > * Note that once a job was taken from the entities queue and pushed to the
>
> Please only use present tense in software documentation. No past, future, or
> perfect tenses please.
>
> * Note that once a job _is_ taken from the entities queue and pushed to the
>
> > * hardware, i.e. the pending queue, the entity must not be referenced anymore
> > * through the jobs entity pointer.
>
> Yeah, another good explanation--thanks for including this.
>
Yes to all the wordin changes.
> > @@ -96,6 +114,8 @@ static inline void drm_sched_rq_remove_fifo_locked(struct drm_sched_entity *enti
> >
> > void drm_sched_rq_update_fifo(struct drm_sched_entity *entity, ktime_t ts)
> > {
> > + WARN_ON(!!entity->single_sched);
> > +
> > /*
> > * Both locks need to be grabbed, one to protect from entity->rq change
> > * for entity from within concurrent drm_sched_entity_select_rq and the
> > @@ -126,6 +146,8 @@ void drm_sched_rq_update_fifo(struct drm_sched_entity *entity, ktime_t ts)
> > static void drm_sched_rq_init(struct drm_gpu_scheduler *sched,
> > struct drm_sched_rq *rq)
> > {
> > + WARN_ON(sched->sched_policy == DRM_SCHED_POLICY_SINGLE_ENTITY);
> > +
> > spin_lock_init(&rq->lock);
> > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&rq->entities);
> > rq->rb_tree_root = RB_ROOT_CACHED;
> > @@ -144,6 +166,8 @@ static void drm_sched_rq_init(struct drm_gpu_scheduler *sched,
> > void drm_sched_rq_add_entity(struct drm_sched_rq *rq,
> > struct drm_sched_entity *entity)
> > {
> > + WARN_ON(!!entity->single_sched);
> > +
> > if (!list_empty(&entity->list))
> > return;
> >
> > @@ -166,6 +190,8 @@ void drm_sched_rq_add_entity(struct drm_sched_rq *rq,
> > void drm_sched_rq_remove_entity(struct drm_sched_rq *rq,
> > struct drm_sched_entity *entity)
> > {
> > + WARN_ON(!!entity->single_sched);
> > +
> > if (list_empty(&entity->list))
> > return;
> >
> > @@ -641,7 +667,7 @@ int drm_sched_job_init(struct drm_sched_job *job,
> > struct drm_sched_entity *entity,
> > void *owner)
> > {
> > - if (!entity->rq)
> > + if (!entity->rq && !entity->single_sched)
> > return -ENOENT;
> >
> > job->entity = entity;
> > @@ -674,13 +700,16 @@ void drm_sched_job_arm(struct drm_sched_job *job)
> > {
> > struct drm_gpu_scheduler *sched;
> > struct drm_sched_entity *entity = job->entity;
> > + bool single_entity = !!entity->single_sched;
> >
> > BUG_ON(!entity);
> > - drm_sched_entity_select_rq(entity);
> > - sched = entity->rq->sched;
> > + if (!single_entity)
> > + drm_sched_entity_select_rq(entity);
> > + sched = drm_sched_entity_to_scheduler(entity);
>
> So here, I wonder, and I've a tiny exploratory request:
> Could we "fake" an rq for the single-entity and thus remove (become unnecessary)
> all those "if (single-entity)" and "if (!single-entity)".
>
> If we keep adding code peppered with if () everywhere, over the years it'll become
> hard to read. However, if we use maps to achieve choice and selection, such as entity->rq,
> then you'd not need much of the "if (single-entity)" and "if (!single-entity)",
> and the code would naturally stay mostly the same and the sched selection would
> still be abstracted out via the entity->rq.
>
> What do you think?
>
I looked into this a little and can't really think of an easy way to do
this. Wouldn't we just end up with a similar number of checks in the rq
code? I'd say for now let's just live the if / else in a few places. If
we start adding more scheduling modes then perhaps we explore another
approach.
> >
> > job->sched = sched;
> > - job->s_priority = entity->rq - sched->sched_rq;
> > + if (!single_entity)
> > + job->s_priority = entity->rq - sched->sched_rq;
> > job->id = atomic64_inc_return(&sched->job_id_count);
> >
> > drm_sched_fence_init(job->s_fence, job->entity);
> > @@ -896,6 +925,14 @@ drm_sched_select_entity(struct drm_gpu_scheduler *sched)
> > if (!drm_sched_can_queue(sched))
> > return NULL;
> >
> > + if (sched->single_entity) {
> > + if (!READ_ONCE(sched->single_entity->stopped) &&
> > + drm_sched_entity_is_ready(sched->single_entity))
> > + return sched->single_entity;
> > +
> > + return NULL;
> > + }
> > +
> > /* Kernel run queue has higher priority than normal run queue*/
> > for (i = DRM_SCHED_PRIORITY_COUNT - 1; i >= DRM_SCHED_PRIORITY_MIN; i--) {
> > entity = sched->sched_policy == DRM_SCHED_POLICY_FIFO ?
> > @@ -1092,6 +1129,7 @@ int drm_sched_init(struct drm_gpu_scheduler *sched,
> > return -EINVAL;
> >
> > sched->ops = ops;
> > + sched->single_entity = NULL;
> > sched->hw_submission_limit = hw_submission;
> > sched->name = name;
> > if (!submit_wq) {
> > @@ -1111,7 +1149,9 @@ int drm_sched_init(struct drm_gpu_scheduler *sched,
> > sched->dev = dev;
> > sched->sched_policy = sched_policy == DRM_SCHED_POLICY_UNSET ?
> > drm_sched_policy_default : sched_policy;
> > - for (i = DRM_SCHED_PRIORITY_MIN; i < DRM_SCHED_PRIORITY_COUNT; i++)
> > + for (i = DRM_SCHED_PRIORITY_MIN; sched_policy !=
> > + DRM_SCHED_POLICY_SINGLE_ENTITY && i < DRM_SCHED_PRIORITY_COUNT;
> > + i++)
>
> So, "sched_policy != DRM_SCHED_POLICY_SINGLE_ENTITY" doesn't seem to be
> a loop-invariant, since it doesn't cause the loop to exit over iterations.
> It's just a gate to executing the loop. I am used to seeing only loop
> invariants in the for-loop conditional.
>
> I wonder if it is clearer to just say what is meant:
>
> if (sched_policy != DRM_SCHED_POLICY_SINGLE_ENTITY) {
> for (i = DRM_SCHED_PRIORITY_MIN; i < DRM_SCHED_PRIORITY_COUNT; i++)
> ...
> }
>
Sure, will add if statement.
> On a larger scheme of things, I believe it is a bit presumptuous to say:
>
> struct drm_gpu_scheduler {
> ...
> struct drm_sched_rq sched_rq[DRM_SCHED_PRIORITY_COUNT];
> ...
> };
>
> I mean, why does a scheduler have to implement all those priorities? Maybe it
> wants to implement only one. :-)
>
> Perhaps we can have,
>
> struct drm_gpu_scheduler {
> ...
> u32 num_rqs;
> struct drm_sched_rq *sched_rq;
> ...
> };
>
> Which might make it easier to fake out an rq for single-entity and then leave
> the code mostly intact, while also implementing single-entity.
>
> It's not a gating issue, but perhaps it would create a cleaner code in the long
> run? Maybe we should explore this?
>
See above. I'd vote for leave this as is for now.
> > drm_sched_rq_init(sched, &sched->sched_rq[i]);
> >
> > init_waitqueue_head(&sched->job_scheduled);
> > @@ -1143,7 +1183,15 @@ void drm_sched_fini(struct drm_gpu_scheduler *sched)
> >
> > drm_sched_submit_stop(sched);
> >
> > - for (i = DRM_SCHED_PRIORITY_COUNT - 1; i >= DRM_SCHED_PRIORITY_MIN; i--) {
> > + if (sched->single_entity) {
> > + spin_lock(&sched->single_entity->rq_lock);
> > + sched->single_entity->stopped = true;
> > + spin_unlock(&sched->single_entity->rq_lock);
> > + }
> > +
> > + for (i = DRM_SCHED_PRIORITY_COUNT - 1; sched->sched_policy !=
> > + DRM_SCHED_POLICY_SINGLE_ENTITY && i >= DRM_SCHED_PRIORITY_MIN;
> > + i--) {
> > struct drm_sched_rq *rq = &sched->sched_rq[i];
>
> Same sentiment here, as above.
Got it.
Matt
> --
> Regards,
> Luben
>
> >
> > spin_lock(&rq->lock);
> > @@ -1186,6 +1234,8 @@ void drm_sched_increase_karma(struct drm_sched_job *bad)
> > struct drm_sched_entity *entity;
> > struct drm_gpu_scheduler *sched = bad->sched;
> >
> > + WARN_ON(sched->sched_policy == DRM_SCHED_POLICY_SINGLE_ENTITY);
> > +
> > /* don't change @bad's karma if it's from KERNEL RQ,
> > * because sometimes GPU hang would cause kernel jobs (like VM updating jobs)
> > * corrupt but keep in mind that kernel jobs always considered good.
> > diff --git a/include/drm/gpu_scheduler.h b/include/drm/gpu_scheduler.h
> > index 9f830ff84bad..655675f797ea 100644
> > --- a/include/drm/gpu_scheduler.h
> > +++ b/include/drm/gpu_scheduler.h
> > @@ -79,6 +79,7 @@ enum drm_sched_policy {
> > DRM_SCHED_POLICY_UNSET,
> > DRM_SCHED_POLICY_RR,
> > DRM_SCHED_POLICY_FIFO,
> > + DRM_SCHED_POLICY_SINGLE_ENTITY,
> > DRM_SCHED_POLICY_COUNT,
> > };
> >
> > @@ -112,6 +113,9 @@ struct drm_sched_entity {
> > */
> > struct drm_sched_rq *rq;
> >
> > + /** @single_sched: Single scheduler */
> > + struct drm_gpu_scheduler *single_sched;
> > +
> > /**
> > * @sched_list:
> > *
> > @@ -473,6 +477,7 @@ struct drm_sched_backend_ops {
> > * struct drm_gpu_scheduler - scheduler instance-specific data
> > *
> > * @ops: backend operations provided by the driver.
> > + * @single_entity: Single entity for the scheduler
> > * @hw_submission_limit: the max size of the hardware queue.
> > * @timeout: the time after which a job is removed from the scheduler.
> > * @name: name of the ring for which this scheduler is being used.
> > @@ -504,6 +509,7 @@ struct drm_sched_backend_ops {
> > */
> > struct drm_gpu_scheduler {
> > const struct drm_sched_backend_ops *ops;
> > + struct drm_sched_entity *single_entity;
> > uint32_t hw_submission_limit;
> > long timeout;
> > const char *name;
> > @@ -587,6 +593,8 @@ int drm_sched_entity_init(struct drm_sched_entity *entity,
> > struct drm_gpu_scheduler **sched_list,
> > unsigned int num_sched_list,
> > atomic_t *guilty);
> > +struct drm_gpu_scheduler *
> > +drm_sched_entity_to_scheduler(struct drm_sched_entity *entity);
> > long drm_sched_entity_flush(struct drm_sched_entity *entity, long timeout);
> > void drm_sched_entity_fini(struct drm_sched_entity *entity);
> > void drm_sched_entity_destroy(struct drm_sched_entity *entity);
>
