On Mon, Aug 01, 2016 at 05:28:34PM +0300, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
> On ma, 2016-08-01 at 11:15 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 01, 2016 at 01:07:55PM +0300, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
> > >
> > > On ma, 2016-08-01 at 10:10 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Space reservation is already safe with respect to the ring->size
> > > > modulus, but hardware only expects to see values in the range
> > > > 0...ring->size-1 (inclusive) and so requires the modulus to prevent us
> > > > writing the value ring->size instead of 0. As this is only required for
> > > > the register itself, we can defer the modulus to the register update and
> > > > not perform it after every command packet. We keep the
> > > > intel_ring_advance() around in the code to provide demarcation for the
> > > > end-of-packet (which then can be compared against intel_ring_begin() as
> > > > the number of dwords emitted must match the reserved space).
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Cc: Dave Gordon <david.s.gordon@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c | 2 +-
> > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c | 6 ++++--
> > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.h | 17 +++++++++++++----
> > > > 3 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c
> > > > index bf42a66d6624..824f7efe4e64 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c
> > > > @@ -373,7 +373,7 @@ static void execlists_update_context(struct drm_i915_gem_request *rq)
> > > > struct i915_hw_ppgtt *ppgtt = rq->ctx->ppgtt;
> > > > uint32_t *reg_state = rq->ctx->engine[engine->id].lrc_reg_state;
> > > >
> > > > - reg_state[CTX_RING_TAIL+1] = rq->tail;
> > > > + reg_state[CTX_RING_TAIL+1] = intel_ring_offset(rq->ring, rq->tail);
> > > >
> > > > /* True 32b PPGTT with dynamic page allocation: update PDP
> > > > * registers and point the unallocated PDPs to scratch page.
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c
> > > > index 3142085b5cc0..21d5e8209400 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c
> > > > @@ -1718,7 +1718,8 @@ static void i9xx_submit_request(struct drm_i915_gem_request *request)
> > > > {
> > > > struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = request->i915;
> > > >
> > > > - I915_WRITE_TAIL(request->engine, request->tail);
> > > > + I915_WRITE_TAIL(request->engine,
> > > > + intel_ring_offset(request->ring, request->tail));
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > static void
> > > > @@ -2505,7 +2506,8 @@ static void gen6_bsd_submit_request(struct drm_i915_gem_request *request)
> > > > DRM_ERROR("timed out waiting for the BSD ring to wake up\n");
> > > >
> > > > /* Now that the ring is fully powered up, update the tail */
> > > > - I915_WRITE_FW(RING_TAIL(request->engine->mmio_base), request->tail);
> > > > + I915_WRITE_FW(RING_TAIL(request->engine->mmio_base),
> > > > + intel_ring_offset(request->ring, request->tail));
> > > > POSTING_READ_FW(RING_TAIL(request->engine->mmio_base));
> > > >
> > > > /* Let the ring send IDLE messages to the GT again,
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.h
> > > > index 14d2ea36fb88..9ac96ddb01ee 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.h
> > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.h
> > > > @@ -460,14 +460,23 @@ static inline void intel_ring_emit_reg(struct intel_ring *ring, i915_reg_t reg)
> > > >
> > > > static inline void intel_ring_advance(struct intel_ring *ring)
> > > > {
> > > > + /* Dummy function.
> > > > + *
> > > > + * This serves as a placeholder in the code so that the reader
> > > > + * can compare against the preceding intel_ring_begin() and
> > > > + * check that the number of dwords emitted matches the space
> > > > + * reserved for the command packet (i.e. the value passed to
> > > > + * intel_ring_begin()).
> > > > + */
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +static inline u32 intel_ring_offset(struct intel_ring *ring, u32 value)
> > > > +{
> > > > /* The modulus is required so that we avoid writing
> > > > * request->tail == ring->size, rather than the expected 0,
> > > > * into the RING_TAIL register as that can cause a GPU hang.
> > > > - * As this is only strictly required for the request->tail,
> > > > - * and only then as we write the value into hardware, we can
> > > > - * one day remove the modulus after every command packet.
> > > > */
> > > > - ring->tail &= ring->size - 1;
> > > > + return value & (ring->size - 1);
> > > > }
> > > The comment seems outdated-ish as it speaks of modulus which is nowhere
> > > to be seen. I'd speak of 'masking'. With that,
> > The operation is a modulus. The common optimisation for moduli with
> > a power-of-two divisor being applied.
>
> Yes, I'm perfectly aware of that, but as discussed in IRC, that
> information would be good to be local. Modulus in this case a trick to
> achieve value == ring->size ? 0 : value; Which would again be more
> informative, we do not expect wrap, but we have one special value.
Ditch all the verbage, and go with the single line:
/* Don't write ring->size (equivalent to 0) as that hangs some GPUs. */
that just fits into 80cols.
Keep it to why not how and we need not argue about language.
-Chris
--
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
