Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2017-11-22 13:31:56) > > On 22/11/2017 12:59, Chris Wilson wrote: > > Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2017-11-22 12:46:21) > >> From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> Keep a per-engine number of runnable (waiting for GPU time) requests. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_request.c | 5 +++++ > >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_engine_cs.c | 5 +++-- > >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c | 1 + > >> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.h | 8 ++++++++ > >> 4 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_request.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_request.c > >> index 7325469ce754..e3c74cafa7d4 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_request.c > >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_request.c > >> @@ -480,6 +480,9 @@ void __i915_gem_request_submit(struct drm_i915_gem_request *request) > >> engine->emit_breadcrumb(request, > >> request->ring->vaddr + request->postfix); > >> > >> + GEM_BUG_ON(engine->queued == 0); > >> + engine->queued--; > > > > Ok, so under engine->timeline->lock. > > > >> + > >> spin_lock(&request->timeline->lock); > >> list_move_tail(&request->link, &timeline->requests); > >> spin_unlock(&request->timeline->lock); > >> @@ -525,6 +528,8 @@ void __i915_gem_request_unsubmit(struct drm_i915_gem_request *request) > >> timeline = request->timeline; > >> GEM_BUG_ON(timeline == engine->timeline); > >> > >> + engine->queued++; > >> + > >> spin_lock(&timeline->lock); > >> list_move(&request->link, &timeline->requests); > >> spin_unlock(&timeline->lock); > >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_engine_cs.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_engine_cs.c > >> index d53680c08cb0..cc9d60130ddd 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_engine_cs.c > >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_engine_cs.c > >> @@ -1675,12 +1675,13 @@ void intel_engine_dump(struct intel_engine_cs *engine, struct drm_printer *m) > >> u64 addr; > >> > >> drm_printf(m, "%s\n", engine->name); > >> - drm_printf(m, " current seqno %x, last %x, hangcheck %x [%d ms], inflight %d\n", > >> + drm_printf(m, " current seqno %x, last %x, hangcheck %x [%d ms], inflight %d, queued %d\n", > >> intel_engine_get_seqno(engine), > >> intel_engine_last_submit(engine), > >> engine->hangcheck.seqno, > >> jiffies_to_msecs(jiffies - engine->hangcheck.action_timestamp), > >> - engine->timeline->inflight_seqnos); > >> + engine->timeline->inflight_seqnos, > >> + INTEL_GEN(dev_priv) >= 8 ? engine->queued : -1); > > > > Not gen8 specific, just add engine->queued++ to i9xx_submit_request(). > > But where to put the decrement, and more importantly, how not make it > lag the reality from the retire worker? :( The decrement is in __i915_gem_request_submit as before. So basically it should remain 0, since we aren't keeping a queue of work for the HW and just submitting into the ringbuffer as soon as we are ready. (This may not always remain so...) Hence why the (last_seqno - current_seqno) was so important. -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
