Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2019-11-21 14:42:56)
>
> On 21/11/2019 13:51, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > In the next patch, we will introduce a new asynchronous retirement
> > worker, fed by execlists CS events. Here we may queue a retirement as
> > soon as a request is submitted to HW (and completes instantly), and we
> > also want to process that retirement as early as possible and cannot
> > afford to postpone (as there may not be another opportunity to retire it
> > for a few seconds). To allow the new async retirer to run in parallel
> > with our submission, pull the __i915_request_queue (that passes the
> > request to HW) inside the timelines spinlock so that the retirement
> > cannot release the timeline before we have completed the submission.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_pm.c | 29 ++++++++++++++++-------
> > 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_pm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_pm.c
> > index 373a4b9f159c..bd0af02bea16 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_pm.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_pm.c
> > @@ -74,18 +74,33 @@ static inline void __timeline_mark_unlock(struct intel_context *ce,
> > #endif /* !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_LOCKDEP) */
> >
> > static void
> > -__intel_timeline_enter_and_release_pm(struct intel_timeline *tl,
> > - struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
> > +__queue_and_release_pm(struct i915_request *rq,
> > + struct intel_timeline *tl,
> > + struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
> > {
> > struct intel_gt_timelines *timelines = &engine->gt->timelines;
> >
> > + /*
> > + * We have to serialise all potential retirement paths with our
> > + * submission, as we don't want to underflow either the
> > + * engine->wakeref.counter or our timeline->active_count.
> > + *
> > + * Equally, we cannot allow a new submission to start until
> > + * after we finish queueing, nor could we allow that submitter
> > + * to retire us before we are ready!
> > + */
> > spin_lock(&timelines->lock);
> >
> > - if (!atomic_fetch_inc(&tl->active_count))
> > - list_add_tail(&tl->link, &timelines->active_list);
> > + /* Hand the request over to HW and so engine_retire() */
> > + __i915_request_queue(rq, NULL);
> >
> > + /* Let new submissions commence (and maybe retire this timeline) */
> > __intel_wakeref_defer_park(&engine->wakeref);
> >
> > + /* Let intel_gt_retire_requests() retire us */
> > + if (!atomic_fetch_inc(&tl->active_count))
> > + list_add_tail(&tl->link, &timelines->active_list);
> > +
> > spin_unlock(&timelines->lock);
>
> Now that everything is under the lock the order of operation is not
> important, or it still is?
queue before unpark that is required.
unpark and add_to_timeline, the order is flexible as the lock governors
the interactions between those and retirers. So I chose to allow the
next newcomer start a few instructions earlier.
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
