Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Quoting Chris Wilson (2017-11-24 13:37:44)
>> Our execlist emulation is intended to only use a maximum of 2 ports per
>> engine, so as to not overflow the wq. (By knowing the limits, we can
>> avoid having to handle the wq exhaustion.) However, upon adding
>> preemption, we lost the skip over the first port if set for the
>> non-preemption path. Restore it.
>>
>> Reported-by: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Fixes: c41937fd994a ("drm/i915/guc: Preemption! With GuC")
>> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Michał Winiarski <michal.winiarski@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_submission.c | 29 ++++++++++++++++-------------
>> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_submission.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_submission.c
>> index cbf5a96f5806..70e64bdb73dd 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_submission.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_submission.c
>> @@ -743,23 +743,26 @@ static void guc_dequeue(struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
>> if (!rb)
>> goto unlock;
>>
>> - if (HAS_LOGICAL_RING_PREEMPTION(engine->i915) && port_isset(port)) {
>> - struct guc_preempt_work *preempt_work =
>> - &engine->i915->guc.preempt_work[engine->id];
>> -
>> - if (rb_entry(rb, struct i915_priolist, node)->priority >
>> - max(port_request(port)->priotree.priority, 0)) {
>> - execlists_set_active(execlists,
>> - EXECLISTS_ACTIVE_PREEMPT);
>> - queue_work(engine->i915->guc.preempt_wq,
>> - &preempt_work->work);
>> - goto unlock;
>> - } else if (port_isset(last_port)) {
>> - goto unlock;
>> + if (port_isset(port)) {
>> + if (HAS_LOGICAL_RING_PREEMPTION(engine->i915)) {
>> + struct guc_preempt_work *preempt_work =
>> + &engine->i915->guc.preempt_work[engine->id];
>> +
>> + if (rb_entry(rb, struct i915_priolist, node)->priority >
>> + max(port_request(port)->priotree.priority, 0)) {
>> + execlists_set_active(execlists,
>> + EXECLISTS_ACTIVE_PREEMPT);
>> + queue_work(engine->i915->guc.preempt_wq,
>> + &preempt_work->work);
>> + goto unlock;
>> + }
>> }
>>
>> port++;
>> + if (port_isset(port))
>
> You probably want to stick with last_port, or at least Mika will want to
> make it last_port again after he expands ELSP[] and propagates all the
> changes.
This looks cleaner this way. We can always bring it back if it truely
helps readability. There has been too much last_port == port[1]
assumptions to tackle with.
-Mika
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
