On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 09:42:34AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> In the next patch we will want to reinsert a request not at the end of
> the priority queue, but at the front. Here we split insert_request()
> into two, the first function retrieves the priority list (for reuse for
> unsubmit later) and a wrapper function to insert at the end of that list
> and to schedule the tasklet if we were first.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c | 35 +++++++++++++++++++----------------
> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c
> index 8ab0c4b76c98..d227480b3a26 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c
> @@ -292,10 +292,10 @@ uint64_t intel_lr_context_descriptor(struct i915_gem_context *ctx,
> return ctx->engine[engine->id].lrc_desc;
> }
>
> -static bool
> -insert_request(struct intel_engine_cs *engine,
> - struct i915_priotree *pt,
> - int prio)
> +static struct i915_priolist *
> +lookup_priolist(struct intel_engine_cs *engine,
> + struct i915_priotree *pt,
> + int prio)
> {
> struct i915_priolist *p;
> struct rb_node **parent, *rb;
> @@ -317,8 +317,7 @@ insert_request(struct intel_engine_cs *engine,
> parent = &rb->rb_right;
> first = false;
> } else {
> - list_add_tail(&pt->link, &p->requests);
> - return false;
> + return p;
> }
> }
>
> @@ -344,16 +343,14 @@ insert_request(struct intel_engine_cs *engine,
> }
>
> p->priority = prio;
> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&p->requests);
> rb_link_node(&p->node, rb, parent);
> rb_insert_color(&p->node, &engine->execlist_queue);
>
> - INIT_LIST_HEAD(&p->requests);
> - list_add_tail(&pt->link, &p->requests);
> -
> if (first)
> engine->execlist_first = &p->node;
>
> - return first;
> + return ptr_pack_bits(p, first, 1);
Matches what I have in my tree, except for "first" hidden in pointer.
Can we #define the bit where we're keeping the "first" status? This way we can
immediatelly see what's going on in the callers.
Or at least add a comment...
With that:
Reviewed-by: Michał Winiarski <michal.winiarski@xxxxxxxxx>
While this is an RFC, I think 1-3 make the code more clear, and could be pushed
as-is (perhaps this one with slightly amended commit message s/next patch/future)
-Michał
> }
>
> static inline void
> @@ -712,6 +709,17 @@ static void intel_lrc_irq_handler(unsigned long data)
> intel_uncore_forcewake_put(dev_priv, engine->fw_domains);
> }
>
> +static void insert_request(struct intel_engine_cs *engine,
> + struct i915_priotree *pt,
> + int prio)
> +{
> + struct i915_priolist *p = lookup_priolist(engine, pt, prio);
> +
> + list_add_tail(&pt->link, &ptr_mask_bits(p, 1)->requests);
> + if (ptr_unmask_bits(p, 1) && execlists_elsp_ready(engine))
> + tasklet_hi_schedule(&engine->irq_tasklet);
> +}
> +
> static void execlists_submit_request(struct drm_i915_gem_request *request)
> {
> struct intel_engine_cs *engine = request->engine;
> @@ -720,12 +728,7 @@ static void execlists_submit_request(struct drm_i915_gem_request *request)
> /* Will be called from irq-context when using foreign fences. */
> spin_lock_irqsave(&engine->timeline->lock, flags);
>
> - if (insert_request(engine,
> - &request->priotree,
> - request->priotree.priority)) {
> - if (execlists_elsp_ready(engine))
> - tasklet_hi_schedule(&engine->irq_tasklet);
> - }
> + insert_request(engine, &request->priotree, request->priotree.priority);
>
> GEM_BUG_ON(!engine->execlist_first);
> GEM_BUG_ON(list_empty(&request->priotree.link));
> --
> 2.13.2
>
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
