Quoting Joonas Lahtinen (2017-09-29 08:29:57) > On Thu, 2017-09-28 at 20:39 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > When we write to ELSP, it triggers a context preemption at the earliest > > arbitration point (3DPRIMITIVE, some PIPECONTROLs, a few other > > operations and the explicit MI_ARB_CHECK). If this is to the same > > context, it triggers a LITE_RESTORE where the RING_TAIL is merely > > updated (used currently to chain requests from the same context > > together, avoiding bubbles). However, if it is to a different context, a > > full context-switch is performed and it will start to execute the new > > context saving the image of the old for later execution. > > > > Previously we avoided preemption by only submitting a new context when > > the old was idle. But now we wish embrace it, and if the new request has > > a higher priority than the currently executing request, we write to the > > ELSP regardless, thus triggering preemption, but we tell the GPU to > > switch to our special preemption context (not the target). In the > > context-switch interrupt handler, we know that the previous contexts > > have finished execution and so can unwind all the incomplete requests > > and compute the new highest priority request to execute. > > > > It would be feasible to avoid the switch-to-idle intermediate by > > programming the ELSP with the target context. The difficulty is in > > tracking which request that should be whilst maintaining the dependency > > change, the error comes in with coalesced requests. As we only track the > > most recent request and its priority, we may run into the issue of being > > tricked in preempting a high priority request that was followed by a > > low priority request from the same context (e.g. for PI); worse still > > that earlier request may be our own dependency and the order then broken > > by preemption. By injecting the switch-to-idle and then recomputing the > > priority queue, we avoid the issue with tracking in-flight coalesced > > requests. Having tried the preempt-to-busy approach, and failed to find > > a way around the coalesced priority issue, Michal's original proposal to > > inject an idle context (based on handling GuC preemption) succeeds. > > > > The current heuristic for deciding when to preempt are only if the new > > request is of higher priority, and has the privileged priority of > > greater than 0. Note that the scheduler remains unfair! > > > > v2: Disable for gen8 (bdw/bsw) as we need additional w/a for GPGPU. > > Since, the feature is now conditional and not always available when we > > have a scheduler, make it known via the HAS_SCHEDULER GETPARAM (now a > > capability mask). > > v3: Stylistic tweaks. > > > > Suggested-by: Michal Winiarski <michal.winiarski@xxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Michal Winiarski <michal.winiarski@xxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Arkadiusz Hiler <arkadiusz.hiler@xxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@xxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Ben Widawsky <benjamin.widawsky@xxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Zhenyu Wang <zhenyuw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Zhi Wang <zhi.a.wang@xxxxxxxxx> > > I'm still voting for "preempting" variable name + kerneldoc. I'm open to suggestions, or even a list of questions that you would like answered for @preempt[ing]. That goes for anything. If at any time anyone sees something odd or not clear from the context while reading the code, just send a patch adding a question. Knowing at what point the confusion arose gives us the perfect place to address that for the next reader. -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
