On 8/15/19 2:48 PM, Michal Wajdeczko wrote:We can do WOPCM partitioning using rough estimates and limits and perform detailed check as separate step. v2: oops! s/max/min Signed-off-by: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@xxxxxxxxx> Cc: Daniele Ceraolo Spurio <daniele.ceraolospurio@xxxxxxxxx> Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_wopcm.c | 105 ++++++++++++++++++++--------- 1 file changed, 74 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_wopcm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_wopcm.cindex 2975e00f57f5..39f2764ca3a8 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_wopcm.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_wopcm.c @@ -87,7 +87,8 @@ void intel_wopcm_init_early(struct intel_wopcm *wopcm) else wopcm->size = GEN9_WOPCM_SIZE; - DRM_DEBUG_DRIVER("WOPCM size: %uKiB\n", wopcm->size / 1024); + DRM_DEV_DEBUG_DRIVER(i915->drm.dev, "WOPCM: size %uKiB\n", + wopcm->size / SZ_1K); }static inline u32 context_reserved_size(struct drm_i915_private *i915) @@ -138,9 +139,9 @@ static inline int gen9_check_huc_fw_fits(u32 guc_wopcm_size, u32 huc_fw_size)return 0; } -static inline int check_hw_restriction(struct drm_i915_private *i915, - u32 guc_wopcm_base, u32 guc_wopcm_size, - u32 huc_fw_size) +static inline bool check_hw_restrictions(struct drm_i915_private *i915, + u32 guc_wopcm_base, u32 guc_wopcm_size, + u32 huc_fw_size) { int err = 0;@@ -151,7 +152,64 @@ static inline int check_hw_restriction(struct drm_i915_private *i915, (IS_GEN(i915, 9) || IS_CNL_REVID(i915, CNL_REVID_A0, CNL_REVID_A0)))err = gen9_check_huc_fw_fits(guc_wopcm_size, huc_fw_size); - return err; + return !err; +} ++static inline bool __check_layout(struct drm_i915_private *i915, u32 wopcm_size,+ u32 guc_wopcm_base, u32 guc_wopcm_size, + u32 guc_fw_size, u32 huc_fw_size) +{ + const u32 ctx_rsvd = context_reserved_size(i915); + u32 size; + + if (unlikely(guc_wopcm_base > wopcm_size)) { + dev_err(i915->drm.dev, + "WOPCM: invalid GuC region base: %uK > %uK\n", + guc_wopcm_base / SZ_1K, wopcm_size / SZ_1K); + return false; + } + + size = wopcm_size - ctx_rsvd; + if (unlikely(guc_wopcm_base > size)) { + dev_err(i915->drm.dev, + "WOPCM: invalid GuC region base: %uK > %uK\n", + guc_wopcm_base / SZ_1K, size / SZ_1K); + return false; + } + + if (unlikely(guc_wopcm_size > wopcm_size)) { + dev_err(i915->drm.dev, + "WOPCM: invalid GuC region size: %uK > %uK\n", + guc_wopcm_size / SZ_1K, wopcm_size / SZ_1K); + return false; + } + + size = wopcm_size - guc_wopcm_base - ctx_rsvd; + if (unlikely(guc_wopcm_size > size)) { + dev_err(i915->drm.dev, + "WOPCM: invalid GuC region size: %uK > %uK\n", + guc_wopcm_size / SZ_1K, size / SZ_1K); + return false; + }I think we can consolidate all the checks above in just: wopcm_guc_max = wopcm_size - ctx_rsvd; if (range_overflows(guc_wopcm_base, guc_wopcm_size, wopcm_guc_max) return false;
if we consolidate, then it will be hard to tell what went wrong. with separate logs we can find which check failed (they all are unlikely, but still possible)
+ + size = guc_fw_size + GUC_WOPCM_RESERVED + GUC_WOPCM_STACK_RESERVED; + if (unlikely(guc_wopcm_size < size)) { + dev_err(i915->drm.dev, "WOPCM: no space for %s: %uK < %uK\n", + intel_uc_fw_type_repr(INTEL_UC_FW_TYPE_GUC), + guc_wopcm_size / SZ_1K, size / SZ_1K); + return false; + } + + size = huc_fw_size + WOPCM_RESERVED_SIZE; + if (unlikely(guc_wopcm_base < size)) { + dev_err(i915->drm.dev, "WOPCM: no space for %s: %uK < %uK\n", + intel_uc_fw_type_repr(INTEL_UC_FW_TYPE_HUC), + guc_wopcm_base / SZ_1K, size / SZ_1K); + return false; + } + + return check_hw_restrictions(i915, guc_wopcm_base, guc_wopcm_size, + huc_fw_size); } /** @@ -172,8 +230,6 @@ void intel_wopcm_init(struct intel_wopcm *wopcm) u32 ctx_rsvd = context_reserved_size(i915); u32 guc_wopcm_base; u32 guc_wopcm_size; - u32 guc_wopcm_rsvd; - int err; if (!guc_fw_size) return; @@ -183,39 +239,26 @@ void intel_wopcm_init(struct intel_wopcm *wopcm) GEM_BUG_ON(wopcm->guc.size); GEM_BUG_ON(guc_fw_size >= wopcm->size); GEM_BUG_ON(huc_fw_size >= wopcm->size); + GEM_BUG_ON(ctx_rsvd + WOPCM_RESERVED_SIZE >= wopcm->size); if (i915_inject_probe_failure(i915)) return; guc_wopcm_base = ALIGN(huc_fw_size + WOPCM_RESERVED_SIZE, GUC_WOPCM_OFFSET_ALIGNMENT); - if ((guc_wopcm_base + ctx_rsvd) >= wopcm->size) { - DRM_ERROR("GuC WOPCM base (%uKiB) is too big.\n", - guc_wopcm_base / 1024); - return; - } - + guc_wopcm_base = min(wopcm->size - ctx_rsvd, guc_wopcm_base);This line confused me quite a bit until we chatted on IM about it. maybe add a comment, e.g.:/* * we want to keep all the checks in the same place to be able to re-use * them when we find locked values in WOPCM so we don't validate * guc_wopcm_base here, but we still need to clamp it to make sure the * following math is sane. */
ok
Also, with my suggestion for consolidation above, for the checks we always care about wopcm->size - ctx_rsvd, so maybe store that in a local var to use it here and below and pass that into __check_layout().
all math tries to use sizes from the diagram above, introducing one sub-size helper might be over engineering ;)
Danieleguc_wopcm_size = wopcm->size - guc_wopcm_base - ctx_rsvd; guc_wopcm_size &= GUC_WOPCM_SIZE_MASK; - DRM_DEBUG_DRIVER("Calculated GuC WOPCM Region: [%uKiB, %uKiB)\n", - guc_wopcm_base / 1024, guc_wopcm_size / 1024); + DRM_DEV_DEBUG_DRIVER(i915->drm.dev, + "Calculated GuC WOPCM Region: [%uKiB, %uKiB)\n", + guc_wopcm_base / SZ_1K, guc_wopcm_size / SZ_1K); - guc_wopcm_rsvd = GUC_WOPCM_RESERVED + GUC_WOPCM_STACK_RESERVED; - if ((guc_fw_size + guc_wopcm_rsvd) > guc_wopcm_size) { - DRM_ERROR("Need %uKiB WOPCM for GuC, %uKiB available.\n", - (guc_fw_size + guc_wopcm_rsvd) / 1024, - guc_wopcm_size / 1024); - return; + if (__check_layout(i915, wopcm->size, guc_wopcm_base, guc_wopcm_size, + guc_fw_size, huc_fw_size)) { + wopcm->guc.base = guc_wopcm_base; + wopcm->guc.size = guc_wopcm_size; + GEM_BUG_ON(!wopcm->guc.base); + GEM_BUG_ON(!wopcm->guc.size); } - - err = check_hw_restriction(i915, guc_wopcm_base, guc_wopcm_size, - huc_fw_size); - if (err) - return; - - wopcm->guc.base = guc_wopcm_base; - wopcm->guc.size = guc_wopcm_size; - GEM_BUG_ON(!wopcm->guc.base); - GEM_BUG_ON(!wopcm->guc.size); }
_______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
