On ma, 2016-07-25 at 18:32 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> static void
> -i915_gem_object_retire__write(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj)
> +i915_gem_object_retire__fence(struct i915_gem_active *active,
> + struct drm_i915_gem_request *req)
> {
> - GEM_BUG_ON(!__i915_gem_active_is_busy(&obj->last_write));
> - GEM_BUG_ON(!(obj->active &
> - intel_engine_flag(i915_gem_active_get_engine(&obj->last_write,
> - &obj->base.dev->struct_mutex))));
> +}
>
An empty function? Could have at least a comment why currently empty.
> - i915_gem_active_set(&obj->last_write, NULL);
> - intel_fb_obj_flush(obj, true, ORIGIN_CS);
> +static void
> +i915_gem_object_retire__write(struct i915_gem_active *active,
> + struct drm_i915_gem_request *request)
> +{
> + intel_fb_obj_flush(container_of(active,
> + struct drm_i915_gem_object,
> + last_write),
Add a function, manual container_of are horrible. And do it in the
beginning of a function as a separate line, too.
> + true,
> + ORIGIN_CS);
> }
>
> static void
> -i915_gem_object_retire__read(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj, int idx)
> +i915_gem_object_retire__read(struct i915_gem_active *active,
> + struct drm_i915_gem_request *request)
> {
> - struct intel_engine_cs *engine;
> + int idx = request->engine->id;
> + struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj =
> + container_of(active, struct drm_i915_gem_object, last_read[idx]);
Ditto.
> struct i915_vma *vma;
>
> - GEM_BUG_ON(!__i915_gem_active_is_busy(&obj->last_read[idx]));
> - GEM_BUG_ON(!(obj->active & (1 << idx)));
> -
> - list_del_init(&obj->engine_list[idx]);
> - i915_gem_active_set(&obj->last_read[idx], NULL);
> -
> - engine = i915_gem_active_get_engine(&obj->last_write,
> - &obj->base.dev->struct_mutex);
> - if (engine && engine->id == idx)
> - i915_gem_object_retire__write(obj);
> + GEM_BUG_ON((obj->active & (1 << idx)) == 0);
BIT() or maybe even ENGINE_MASK() when we have such a beauty. Or do you
intend to make this about something else but engines eventually?
>
> obj->active &= ~(1 << idx);
> if (obj->active)
> @@ -2419,15 +2384,13 @@ i915_gem_object_retire__read(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj, int idx)
> * so that we don't steal from recently used but inactive objects
> * (unless we are forced to ofc!)
> */
> - list_move_tail(&obj->global_list,
> - &to_i915(obj->base.dev)->mm.bound_list);
> + list_move_tail(&obj->global_list, &request->i915->mm.bound_list);
As a follow-up s/global_list/global_link/?
> void i915_gem_retire_requests(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> @@ -2818,8 +2742,7 @@ out:
> }
>
> static int
> -__i915_gem_object_sync(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj,
> - struct drm_i915_gem_request *to,
> +__i915_gem_object_sync(struct drm_i915_gem_request *to,
> struct drm_i915_gem_request *from)
> {
> int ret;
> @@ -2827,9 +2750,6 @@ __i915_gem_object_sync(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj,
> if (to->engine == from->engine)
> return 0;
>
> - if (i915_gem_request_completed(from))
> - return 0;
> -
Why remove the early exit?
> @@ -172,6 +176,24 @@ static void i915_gem_request_retire(struct drm_i915_gem_request *request)
> */
> request->ring->last_retired_head = request->postfix;
>
> + /* Walk through the active list, calling retire on each. This allows
> + * objects to track their GPU activity and mark themselves as idle
> + * when their *last* active request is completed (updating state
> + * tracking lists for eviction, active references for GEM, etc).
> + *
> + * As the ->retire() may free the node, we decouple it first and
> + * pass along the auxiliary information (to avoid dereferencing
> + * the node after the callback).
> + */
> + list_for_each_entry_safe(active, next, &request->active_list, link) {
> + prefetchw(next);
Would not this be an improvement to go to list_for_each_entry{,_safe}
rather?
> +
> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&active->link);
> + active->__request = NULL;
> +
> + active->retire(active, request);
> + }
> +
> i915_gem_request_remove_from_client(request);
>
> if (request->previous_context) {
>
> @@ -705,10 +723,13 @@ int i915_wait_request(struct drm_i915_gem_request *req)
> {
> int ret;
>
> - GEM_BUG_ON(!req);
> lockdep_assert_held(&req->i915->drm.struct_mutex);
> + GEM_BUG_ON(list_empty(&req->link));
Humm, why no waiting on requests without the tracker object? Or then
need to use __i915_wait_request? Kerneldoc might be useful.
> i915_gem_active_peek(const struct i915_gem_active *active, struct mutex *mutex)
> {
> - return active->__request;
> + struct drm_i915_gem_request *request;
> +
> + request = active->__request;
> + if (!request || i915_gem_request_completed(request))
> + return NULL;
I see early exit was kinda migrated here.
> +
> + return request;
> }
>
> /**
> @@ -326,13 +360,7 @@ i915_gem_active_peek(const struct i915_gem_active *active, struct mutex *mutex)
> static inline struct drm_i915_gem_request *
> i915_gem_active_get(const struct i915_gem_active *active, struct mutex *mutex)
> {
> - struct drm_i915_gem_request *request;
> -
> - request = i915_gem_active_peek(active, mutex);
> - if (!request || i915_gem_request_completed(request))
> - return NULL;
> -
> - return i915_gem_request_get(request);
> + return i915_gem_request_get(i915_gem_active_peek(active, mutex));
On average looks better with a variable in between and not all
functions chained.
Regards, Joonas
--
Joonas Lahtinen
Open Source Technology Center
Intel Corporation
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
