On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 09:49:51AM +0800, Chuanxiao Dong wrote:
> GVT needs single submission and cannot allow merge. So when GuC submitting
> a GVT request, the next one should be submitted to guc later until the
> previous one is completed. This is following the usage when using execlist
> mode submission.
>
> Cc: chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Signed-off-by: Chuanxiao Dong <chuanxiao.dong@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_context.h | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_guc_submission.c | 6 +++++-
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c | 25 ++++---------------------
> 3 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_context.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_context.h
> index 4af2ab94..025eba2 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_context.h
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_context.h
> @@ -246,6 +246,26 @@ static inline bool i915_gem_context_is_kernel(struct i915_gem_context *ctx)
> return !ctx->file_priv;
> }
>
> +static inline bool
> +i915_gem_context_single_port_submit(const struct i915_gem_context *ctx)
> +{
> + return (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DRM_I915_GVT) &&
> + i915_gem_context_force_single_submission(ctx));
> +}
> +
> +static inline bool
> +i915_gem_context_can_merge(const struct i915_gem_context *prev,
> + const struct i915_gem_context *next)
> +{
> + if (prev != next)
> + return false;
> +
> + if (i915_gem_context_single_port_submit(prev))
> + return false;
> +
> + return true;
> +}
> +
> /* i915_gem_context.c */
> int __must_check i915_gem_context_init(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv);
> void i915_gem_context_lost(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv);
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_guc_submission.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_guc_submission.c
> index 991e76e..ad90de1 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_guc_submission.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_guc_submission.c
> @@ -680,10 +680,14 @@ static bool i915_guc_dequeue(struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
> struct drm_i915_gem_request *rq =
> rb_entry(rb, typeof(*rq), priotree.node);
>
> - if (last && rq->ctx != last->ctx) {
> + if (last && !i915_gem_context_can_merge(last->ctx, rq->ctx)) {
> if (port != engine->execlist_port)
> break;
>
> + if (i915_gem_context_single_port_submit(last->ctx) ||
> + i915_gem_context_single_port_submit(rq->ctx))
> + break;
> +
> i915_gem_request_assign(&port->request, last);
> nested_enable_signaling(last);
> port++;
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c
> index dd0e9d587..a49801e 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c
> @@ -377,24 +377,6 @@ static void execlists_submit_ports(struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
> writel(lower_32_bits(desc[0]), elsp);
> }
>
> -static bool ctx_single_port_submission(const struct i915_gem_context *ctx)
> -{
> - return (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DRM_I915_GVT) &&
> - i915_gem_context_force_single_submission(ctx));
> -}
> -
> -static bool can_merge_ctx(const struct i915_gem_context *prev,
> - const struct i915_gem_context *next)
> -{
> - if (prev != next)
> - return false;
> -
> - if (ctx_single_port_submission(prev))
> - return false;
> -
> - return true;
> -}
> -
> static void execlists_dequeue(struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
> {
> struct drm_i915_gem_request *last;
> @@ -462,7 +444,8 @@ static void execlists_dequeue(struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
> * request, and so we never need to tell the hardware about
> * the first.
> */
> - if (last && !can_merge_ctx(cursor->ctx, last->ctx)) {
> + if (last &&
> + !i915_gem_context_can_merge(last->ctx, cursor->ctx)) {
> /* If we are on the second port and cannot combine
> * this request with the last, then we are done.
> */
> @@ -475,8 +458,8 @@ static void execlists_dequeue(struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
> * context (even though a different request) to
> * the second port.
> */
> - if (ctx_single_port_submission(last->ctx) ||
> - ctx_single_port_submission(cursor->ctx))
> + if (i915_gem_context_single_port_submit(last->ctx) ||
> + i915_gem_context_single_port_submit(cursor->ctx))
Could you please fix gvt before this mess is propagated. There is no way
it should be caring about a non-gvt context in port[0] or port[1].
-Chris
--
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
