On Fri, 06 Apr 2018 16:33:39 +0200, Chris Wilson
<chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
We will want to park GEM before disengaging the drive^W^W^W unwedging.
Since we already do the work for idling, expose the guts as a new
function that we can then reuse.
v2: Just skip if already parked; makes it more forgiving to use by
future callers.
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Sagar Arun Kamble <sagar.a.kamble@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
Even with the follow up patch on hold, I think this will be useful when
we figure out the right order of operations in reset and stands by itself
as an improvement.
Any objections to pushing this by itself?
-Chris
I would only suggest to make this new function more symmetrical to
"mark_busy" from i915_request.c both in naming and location ;)
/michal
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c | 69 ++++++++++++++++++++-------------
1 file changed, 41 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
index 9650a7b10c5f..134529598a84 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
@@ -136,6 +136,46 @@ int i915_mutex_lock_interruptible(struct drm_device
*dev)
return 0;
}
+static u32 i915_gem_park(struct drm_i915_private *i915)
+{
+ lockdep_assert_held(&i915->drm.struct_mutex);
+ GEM_BUG_ON(i915->gt.active_requests);
+
+ if (!i915->gt.awake)
+ return I915_EPOCH_INVALID;
+
+ GEM_BUG_ON(i915->gt.epoch == I915_EPOCH_INVALID);
+
+ /*
+ * Be paranoid and flush a concurrent interrupt to make sure
+ * we don't reactivate any irq tasklets after parking.
+ *
+ * FIXME: Note that even though we have waited for execlists to be
idle,
+ * there may still be an in-flight interrupt even though the CSB
+ * is now empty. synchronize_irq() makes sure that a residual interrupt
+ * is completed before we continue, but it doesn't prevent the HW from
+ * raising a spurious interrupt later. To complete the shield we should
+ * coordinate disabling the CS irq with flushing the interrupts.
+ */
+ synchronize_irq(i915->drm.irq);
+
+ intel_engines_park(i915);
+ i915_gem_timelines_park(i915);
+
+ i915_pmu_gt_parked(i915);
+
+ i915->gt.awake = false;
+
+ if (INTEL_GEN(i915) >= 6)
+ gen6_rps_idle(i915);
+
+ intel_display_power_put(i915, POWER_DOMAIN_GT_IRQ);
+
+ intel_runtime_pm_put(i915);
+
+ return i915->gt.epoch;
+}
+
int
i915_gem_get_aperture_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, void *data,
struct drm_file *file)
@@ -3496,36 +3536,9 @@ i915_gem_idle_work_handler(struct work_struct
*work)
if (new_requests_since_last_retire(dev_priv))
goto out_unlock;
- /*
- * Be paranoid and flush a concurrent interrupt to make sure
- * we don't reactivate any irq tasklets after parking.
- *
- * FIXME: Note that even though we have waited for execlists to be
idle,
- * there may still be an in-flight interrupt even though the CSB
- * is now empty. synchronize_irq() makes sure that a residual interrupt
- * is completed before we continue, but it doesn't prevent the HW from
- * raising a spurious interrupt later. To complete the shield we should
- * coordinate disabling the CS irq with flushing the interrupts.
- */
- synchronize_irq(dev_priv->drm.irq);
-
- intel_engines_park(dev_priv);
- i915_gem_timelines_park(dev_priv);
+ epoch = i915_gem_park(dev_priv);
- i915_pmu_gt_parked(dev_priv);
-
- GEM_BUG_ON(!dev_priv->gt.awake);
- dev_priv->gt.awake = false;
- epoch = dev_priv->gt.epoch;
- GEM_BUG_ON(epoch == I915_EPOCH_INVALID);
rearm_hangcheck = false;
-
- if (INTEL_GEN(dev_priv) >= 6)
- gen6_rps_idle(dev_priv);
-
- intel_display_power_put(dev_priv, POWER_DOMAIN_GT_IRQ);
-
- intel_runtime_pm_put(dev_priv);
out_unlock:
mutex_unlock(&dev_priv->drm.struct_mutex);
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
