Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Thu, 2017-10-19 at 17:39 +0300, Mika Kuoppala wrote:
>> From: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@xxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Instead of trusting that first available port is at index 0,
>> use accessor to hide this. This is a preparation for a
>> following patches where head can be at arbitrary location
>> in the port array.
>>
>> v2: improved commit message, elsp_ready readability (Chris)
>> v3: s/execlist_port_index/execlist_port (Chris)
>> v4: rebase to new naming
>> v5: fix port_next indexing
>>
>> Cc: Michał Winiarski <michal.winiarski@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> <SNIP>
>
>> @@ -561,15 +563,20 @@ static void port_assign(struct execlist_port *port,
>> static void i915_guc_dequeue(struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
>> {
>> struct intel_engine_execlists * const execlists = &engine->execlists;
>> - struct execlist_port *port = execlists->port;
>> + struct execlist_port *port;
>> struct drm_i915_gem_request *last = NULL;
>> - const struct execlist_port * const last_port =
>> - &execlists->port[execlists->port_mask];
>> bool submit = false;
>> struct rb_node *rb;
>>
>> - if (port_isset(port))
>> - port++;
>> + port = execlists_port_head(execlists);
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * We don't coalesce into last submitted port with guc.
>> + * Find first free port, this is safe as we dont dequeue without
>> + * atleast last port free.
>
> "at least" + "the"
>
> <SNIP>
>
>> @@ -557,6 +557,9 @@ static void execlists_dequeue(struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
>> if (!rb)
>> goto unlock;
>>
>> + port = execlists_port_head(execlists);
>> + last = port_request(port);
>> +
>> if (last) {
>> /*
>> * Don't resubmit or switch until all outstanding
>> @@ -564,7 +567,7 @@ static void execlists_dequeue(struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
>> * know the next preemption status we see corresponds
>> * to this ELSP update.
>> */
>> - if (port_count(&port[0]) > 1)
>> + if (port_count(port) > 1)
>> goto unlock;
>>
>> if (can_preempt(engine) &&
>> @@ -598,7 +601,7 @@ static void execlists_dequeue(struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
>> * the driver is unable to keep up the supply of new
>> * work).
>> */
>> - if (port_count(&port[1]))
>> + if (port_count(execlists_port_next(execlists, port)))
>> goto unlock;
>>
>> /* WaIdleLiteRestore:bdw,skl
>> @@ -634,7 +637,7 @@ static void execlists_dequeue(struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
>> * combine this request with the last, then we
>> * are done.
>> */
>> - if (port == last_port) {
>> + if (port == execlists_port_tail(execlists)) {
>> __list_del_many(&p->requests,
>> &rq->priotree.link);
>
> Nothing to fix related to this patch, but I was sure next hunk was
> going to escape my screen :) Maybe we need to cut the indents a bit.
>
I have noticed the same. But I didn't feel like attacking this loop
until everything is in place and working.
>> @@ -890,7 +902,7 @@ static void intel_lrc_irq_handler(unsigned long data)
>> }
>>
>> /* After the final element, the hw should be idle */
>> - GEM_BUG_ON(port_count(port) == 0 &&
>> + GEM_BUG_ON(port_count(execlists_port_head(execlists)) == 0 &&
>> !(status & GEN8_CTX_STATUS_ACTIVE_IDLE));
>
> Why did you stop trusting port variable here?
>
We did assing it pre loop before. Now we do it inside the loop. Also
I thought I made a favour for reader (and for the bug triager
as GEM_BUG_ON might soon show condition in dmesg)
to note that it is always the first port count we assert
for idleness.
-Mika
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
