On 14/10/2019 10:59, Chris Wilson wrote:
Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2019-10-14 10:50:25)
On 14/10/2019 10:41, Chris Wilson wrote:
Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2019-10-14 10:34:31)
On 13/10/2019 21:30, Chris Wilson wrote:
Since commit e2144503bf3b ("drm/i915: Prevent bonded requests from
overtaking each other on preemption") we have restricted requests to run
on their chosen engine across preemption events. We can take this
restriction into account to know that we will want to resubmit those
requests onto the same physical engine, and so can shortcircuit the
virtual engine selection process and keep the request on the same
engine during unwind.
References: e2144503bf3b ("drm/i915: Prevent bonded requests from overtaking each other on preemption")
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_lrc.c | 6 +++---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c | 2 +-
2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_lrc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_lrc.c
index e6bf633b48d5..03732e3f5ec7 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_lrc.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_lrc.c
@@ -895,7 +895,6 @@ __unwind_incomplete_requests(struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
list_for_each_entry_safe_reverse(rq, rn,
&engine->active.requests,
sched.link) {
- struct intel_engine_cs *owner;
if (i915_request_completed(rq))
continue; /* XXX */
@@ -910,8 +909,7 @@ __unwind_incomplete_requests(struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
* engine so that it can be moved across onto another physical
* engine as load dictates.
*/
- owner = rq->hw_context->engine;
- if (likely(owner == engine)) {
+ if (likely(rq->execution_mask == engine->mask)) {
GEM_BUG_ON(rq_prio(rq) == I915_PRIORITY_INVALID);
if (rq_prio(rq) != prio) {
prio = rq_prio(rq);
@@ -922,6 +920,8 @@ __unwind_incomplete_requests(struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
list_move(&rq->sched.link, pl);
active = rq;
} else {
+ struct intel_engine_cs *owner = rq->hw_context->engine;
I guess there is some benefit in doing fewer operations as long as we
are fixing the engine anyway (at the moment at least).
However on this branch here the concern was request completion racing
with preemption handling and with this change the breadcrumb will not
get canceled any longer and may get signaled on the virtual engine.
Which then leads to the explosion this branch fixed. At least that's
what I remembered in combination with the comment below..
No, we don't change back to the virtual engine, so that is not an issue.
The problem was only because of the rq->engine = owner where the
breadcrumbs were still on the previous engine lists and assumed to be
under that engine->breadcrumbs.lock (but would in future be assumed to be
under rq->engine->breadcrumbs.lock).
Breadcrumb signaling can only be set up on the physical engine? Hm, must
be fine since without preemption that would be the scenario exactly.
Okay, I see there is r-b from Ram already so no need for another one.
With no disrespect to Ram, as the expert you raised a technical point that
I would be happier to record as resolved with an r-b from yourself.
I went back to the patch I reviewed in July and it checks out.
Reviewed-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
Regards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
