Re: [RESEND 3/6] drm/i915/execlists: Always clear preempt status on cancelling all

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




On 16/07/2018 09:03, Chris Wilson wrote:
On reset/wedging, we cancel all pending replies from the HW and we also
want to cancel an outstanding preemption event. Since we use the same
function to cancel the pending replies for reset and for a preemption
event, we can simply clear the active tracking for all.

v2: Keep execlists_user_end() markup for wedging

Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Presumably there is some commit to cite as being fixed with this?

---
  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_submission.c | 2 --
  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c            | 5 ++---
  2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_submission.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_submission.c
index de57cf6085d1..3290d77b0194 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_submission.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc_submission.c
@@ -636,8 +636,6 @@ static void complete_preempt_context(struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
wait_for_guc_preempt_report(engine);
  	intel_write_status_page(engine, I915_GEM_HWS_PREEMPT_INDEX, 0);
-
-	execlists_clear_active(execlists, EXECLISTS_ACTIVE_PREEMPT);
  }
/**
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c
index 703b76dcfcd2..4ef4439ff438 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c
@@ -566,8 +566,6 @@ static void complete_preempt_context(struct intel_engine_execlists *execlists)
  	__unwind_incomplete_requests(container_of(execlists,
  						  struct intel_engine_cs,
  						  execlists));
-
-	execlists_clear_active(execlists, EXECLISTS_ACTIVE_PREEMPT);
  }
static void execlists_dequeue(struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
@@ -795,7 +793,7 @@ execlists_cancel_port_requests(struct intel_engine_execlists * const execlists)
  		port++;
  	}
- execlists_user_end(execlists);
+	execlists->active = 0;

We end up with a mish-mash of direct access and helpers to execlists->active. :(

Do two helpers in a row result in optimized code?

  }
static void reset_csb_pointers(struct intel_engine_execlists *execlists)
@@ -841,6 +839,7 @@ static void execlists_cancel_requests(struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
/* Cancel the requests on the HW and clear the ELSP tracker. */
  	execlists_cancel_port_requests(execlists);
+	execlists_user_end(execlists);

And here execlists_cancel_port_requests already zeroed the whole field.

/* Mark all executing requests as skipped. */
  	list_for_each_entry(rq, &engine->timeline.requests, link) {


Regards,

Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx




[Index of Archives]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux