On 24/02/2018 02:59, Weinan Li wrote:
There is one corner case missing schedule out notification of the preempted
request. The preempted request is just completed when preemption happen,
then it will be canceled and won't be resubmitted later, GVT-g will lost
the schedule out notification.
Here add schedule out notification if found the preempted request has been
completed.
v2:
- refine description, add completed check and notification in
execlists_cancel_port_requests. (Chris)
Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Weinan Li <weinan.z.li@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Zhenyu Wang <zhenyuw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c | 8 +++++++-
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c
index e781c91..24a6e68 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c
@@ -657,10 +657,16 @@ static void execlists_dequeue(struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
while (num_ports-- && port_isset(port)) {
struct i915_request *rq = port_request(port);
+ unsigned int notify;
GEM_BUG_ON(!execlists->active);
intel_engine_context_out(rq->engine);
- execlists_context_status_change(rq, INTEL_CONTEXT_SCHEDULE_PREEMPTED);
+
+ notify = INTEL_CONTEXT_SCHEDULE_PREEMPTED;
+ if (i915_request_completed(rq))
+ notify = INTEL_CONTEXT_SCHEDULE_OUT;
+ execlists_context_status_change(rq, notify);
+
i915_request_put(rq);
memset(port, 0, sizeof(*port));
I hope seqno in HWS cannot change between execlists_cancel_port_requests
and __unwind_incomplete_requests? Some sort of delay in memory
transaction vs the interrupt? No idea, could be talking nonsense.
From style point of view I would probably simplify with an inline
ternary conditional in execlists_context_status_change.
Regards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
