> -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Wilson [mailto:chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Monday, March 27, 2017 9:50 PM > To: Dong, Chuanxiao > Cc: intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; intel-gvt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > Zheng, Xiao; Tian, Kevin; joonas.lahtinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] drm/i915/scheduler: add gvt notification for guc > submission > > On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 09:32:20PM +0800, Chuanxiao Dong wrote: > > GVT request needs a manual mmio load/restore. Before GuC submit a > > request, send notification to gvt for mmio loading. And after the GuC > > finished this GVT request, notify gvt again for mmio restore. This > > follows the usage when using execlists submission. > > > > v2: use context_status_change instead of > execlists_context_status_change > > for better understanding (ZhengXiao) > > v3: remove the comment as it is obvious and not friendly to > > the caller (Kevin) > > v4: fix indent issues (Joonas) > > rename the context_status_change to > > intel_gvt_notify_context_status (Chris) > > v5: move intel_gvt_notify_context_status to intel_gvt.h (Joonas) > > > > Cc: xiao.zheng@xxxxxxxxx > > Cc: kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx > > Cc: joonas.lahtinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Cc: chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Signed-off-by: Chuanxiao Dong <chuanxiao.dong@xxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_guc_submission.c | 4 ++++ > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_gvt.h | 13 +++++++++++++ > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c | 21 +++------------------ > > 3 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_guc_submission.c > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_guc_submission.c > > index 991e76e..1223169 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_guc_submission.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_guc_submission.c > > @@ -606,6 +606,8 @@ static void __i915_guc_submit(struct > drm_i915_gem_request *rq) > > unsigned long flags; > > int b_ret; > > > > + intel_gvt_notify_context_status(rq, INTEL_CONTEXT_SCHEDULE_IN); > > So this gets called for every request, rather than at the context switch > boundaries, and we only once signal the SCHEDULE_OUT. Does that matter? Hi Chris, each request submitted by Guc should have a SCHEDULE_OUT in i915_guc_irq_handler to match with this SCHEDULE_IN. Any possible reason for this OUT/IN not mached? > > Hmm, shouldn't happen in execlists due to force-single-submission. GuC should also use force-single-submission for GVT request as execlists does. I have another patch to add this. Do you think if I should combine that patch with this one? > > Does it matter to gvt that we repeat the SCHEDULE_IN after reset (happens > for execlists as well)? This should be fine. Thanks Chuanxiao > -Chris > > -- > Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
