On 03/05/2019 12:52, Chris Wilson wrote:
To simplify the next patch, update bump_priority and schedule to accept
the internal i915_sched_ndoe directly and not expect a request pointer.
add/remove: 0/0 grow/shrink: 2/1 up/down: 8/-15 (-7)
Function old new delta
i915_schedule_bump_priority 109 113 +4
i915_schedule 50 54 +4
__i915_schedule 922 907 -15
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_scheduler.c | 33 +++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_scheduler.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_scheduler.c
index 4a95cf2201a7..380cb7343a10 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_scheduler.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_scheduler.c
@@ -189,7 +189,7 @@ static void kick_submission(struct intel_engine_cs *engine, int prio)
tasklet_hi_schedule(&engine->execlists.tasklet);
}
-static void __i915_schedule(struct i915_request *rq,
+static void __i915_schedule(struct i915_sched_node *rq,
Can you not use rq for sched node, but perhaps node?
const struct i915_sched_attr *attr)
{
struct intel_engine_cs *engine;
@@ -203,13 +203,13 @@ static void __i915_schedule(struct i915_request *rq,
lockdep_assert_held(&schedule_lock);
GEM_BUG_ON(prio == I915_PRIORITY_INVALID);
- if (i915_request_completed(rq))
+ if (prio <= READ_ONCE(rq->attr.priority))
return;
- if (prio <= READ_ONCE(rq->sched.attr.priority))
+ if (node_signaled(rq))
And refrain from re-ordering the sequence in this patch please.
return;
- stack.signaler = &rq->sched;
+ stack.signaler = rq;
list_add(&stack.dfs_link, &dfs);
/*
@@ -260,9 +260,9 @@ static void __i915_schedule(struct i915_request *rq,
* execlists_submit_request()), we can set our own priority and skip
* acquiring the engine locks.
*/
- if (rq->sched.attr.priority == I915_PRIORITY_INVALID) {
- GEM_BUG_ON(!list_empty(&rq->sched.link));
- rq->sched.attr = *attr;
+ if (rq->attr.priority == I915_PRIORITY_INVALID) {
+ GEM_BUG_ON(!list_empty(&rq->link));
+ rq->attr = *attr;
if (stack.dfs_link.next == stack.dfs_link.prev)
return;
@@ -271,7 +271,7 @@ static void __i915_schedule(struct i915_request *rq,
}
memset(&cache, 0, sizeof(cache));
- engine = rq->engine;
+ engine = node_to_request(rq)->engine;
spin_lock(&engine->timeline.lock);
/* Fifo and depth-first replacement ensure our deps execute before us */
@@ -322,13 +322,20 @@ static void __i915_schedule(struct i915_request *rq,
void i915_schedule(struct i915_request *rq, const struct i915_sched_attr *attr)
{
spin_lock_irq(&schedule_lock);
- __i915_schedule(rq, attr);
+ __i915_schedule(&rq->sched, attr);
spin_unlock_irq(&schedule_lock);
}
+static void __bump_priority(struct i915_sched_node *node, unsigned int bump)
+{
+ struct i915_sched_attr attr = node->attr;
+
+ attr.priority |= bump;
+ __i915_schedule(node, &attr);
+}
+
void i915_schedule_bump_priority(struct i915_request *rq, unsigned int bump)
{
- struct i915_sched_attr attr;
unsigned long flags;
GEM_BUG_ON(bump & ~I915_PRIORITY_MASK);
@@ -337,11 +344,7 @@ void i915_schedule_bump_priority(struct i915_request *rq, unsigned int bump)
return;
spin_lock_irqsave(&schedule_lock, flags);
-
- attr = rq->sched.attr;
- attr.priority |= bump;
- __i915_schedule(rq, &attr);
-
+ __bump_priority(&rq->sched, bump);
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&schedule_lock, flags);
}
Regards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
