Re: [PATCH 03/11] drm/i915/execlists: Suppress redundant preemption

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

 




ping on below

On 28/02/2019 13:11, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:

On 26/02/2019 10:23, Chris Wilson wrote:
On unwinding the active request we give it a small (limited to internal
priority levels) boost to prevent it from being gazumped a second time.
However, this means that it can be promoted to above the request that
triggered the preemption request, causing a preempt-to-idle cycle for no
change. We can avoid this if we take the boost into account when
checking if the preemption request is valid.

v2: After preemption the active request will be after the preemptee if
they end up with equal priority.

v3: Tvrtko pointed out that this, the existing logic, makes
I915_PRIORITY_WAIT non-preemptible. Document this interesting quirk!

v4: Prove Tvrtko was right about WAIT being non-preemptible and test it.
v5: Except not all priorities were made equal, and the WAIT not preempting
is only if we start off as !NEWCLIENT.

Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
---
  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
  1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c
index 0e20f3bc8210..dba19baf6808 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c
@@ -164,6 +164,8 @@
  #define WA_TAIL_DWORDS 2
  #define WA_TAIL_BYTES (sizeof(u32) * WA_TAIL_DWORDS)
+#define ACTIVE_PRIORITY (I915_PRIORITY_NEWCLIENT)
+
  static int execlists_context_deferred_alloc(struct i915_gem_context *ctx,
                          struct intel_engine_cs *engine,
                          struct intel_context *ce);
@@ -190,8 +192,30 @@ static inline int rq_prio(const struct i915_request *rq)
  static int effective_prio(const struct i915_request *rq)
  {
+    int prio = rq_prio(rq);
+
+    /*
+     * On unwinding the active request, we give it a priority bump
+     * equivalent to a freshly submitted request. This protects it from
+     * being gazumped again, but it would be preferable if we didn't
+     * let it be gazumped in the first place!
+     *
+     * See __unwind_incomplete_requests()
+     */
+    if (~prio & ACTIVE_PRIORITY && __i915_request_has_started(rq)) {
+        /*
+         * After preemption, we insert the active request at the
+         * end of the new priority level. This means that we will be
+         * _lower_ priority than the preemptee all things equal (and
+         * so the preemption is valid), so adjust our comparison
+         * accordingly.
+         */
+        prio |= ACTIVE_PRIORITY;
+        prio--;
+    }
+
      /* Restrict mere WAIT boosts from triggering preemption */
-    return rq_prio(rq) | __NO_PREEMPTION;
+    return prio | __NO_PREEMPTION;
  }
  static int queue_prio(const struct intel_engine_execlists *execlists)
@@ -359,7 +383,7 @@ __unwind_incomplete_requests(struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
  {
      struct i915_request *rq, *rn, *active = NULL;
      struct list_head *uninitialized_var(pl);
-    int prio = I915_PRIORITY_INVALID | I915_PRIORITY_NEWCLIENT;
+    int prio = I915_PRIORITY_INVALID | ACTIVE_PRIORITY;
      lockdep_assert_held(&engine->timeline.lock);
@@ -390,9 +414,15 @@ __unwind_incomplete_requests(struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
       * The active request is now effectively the start of a new client
       * stream, so give it the equivalent small priority bump to prevent
       * it being gazumped a second time by another peer.
+     *
+     * One consequence of this preemption boost is that we may jump
+     * over lesser priorities (such as I915_PRIORITY_WAIT), effectively
+     * making those priorities non-preemptible. They will be moved forward

After the previous patch wait priority is non-preemptible by definition making this suggestion preemption boost is making it so not accurate.

+     * in the priority queue, but they will not gain immediate access to
+     * the GPU.
       */
-    if (!(prio & I915_PRIORITY_NEWCLIENT)) {
-        prio |= I915_PRIORITY_NEWCLIENT;
+    if (~prio & ACTIVE_PRIORITY && __i915_request_has_started(active)) {

What is the importance of the has_started check? Hasn't the active request been running by definition?

+        prio |= ACTIVE_PRIORITY;
          active->sched.attr.priority = prio;
          list_move_tail(&active->sched.link,
                     i915_sched_lookup_priolist(engine, prio));


Regards,

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




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

  Powered by Linux