On 04/12/2019 21:17, Chris Wilson wrote:
We want the bonded request to have the same scheduler properties as its
master so that it is placed at the same depth in the queue. For example,
consider we have requests A, B and B', where B & B' are a bonded pair to
run in parallel on two engines.
A -> B
\- B'
B will run after A and so may be scheduled on an idle engine and wait on
A using a semaphore. B' sees B being executed and so enters the queue on
the same engine as A. As B' did not inherit the semaphore-chain from B,
it may have higher precedence than A and so preempts execution. However,
B' then sits on a semaphore waiting for B, who is waiting for A, who is
blocked by B.
Ergo B' needs to inherit the scheduler properties from B (i.e. the
semaphore chain) so that it is scheduled with the same priority as B and
will not be executed ahead of Bs dependencies.
It makes sense in general to inherit, although in this example why would
B' not be preempted by A, once it starts blocking on the semaphore? I am
thinking more and more we should not have priorities imply strict order.
Furthermore, to prevent the priorities changing via the expose fence on
B', we need to couple in the dependencies for PI. This requires us to
relax our sanity-checks that dependencies are strictly in order.
Fixes: ee1136908e9b ("drm/i915/execlists: Virtual engine bonding")
Testcase: igt/gem_exec_balancer/bonded-chain
Testcase: igt/gem_exec_balancer/bonded-semaphore
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
---
Due to deep ELSP submission, the bonded pair may be submitted long
before its master reaches ELSP[0] -- we need to wait in the pairs as we
are no longer relying on the user to do so.
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c | 115 ++++++++++++++++++++------
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_scheduler.c | 1 -
2 files changed, 90 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c
index 3109b8a79b9f..b0f0cfef1eb1 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c
@@ -300,11 +300,11 @@ void i915_request_retire_upto(struct i915_request *rq)
}
static int
-__i915_request_await_execution(struct i915_request *rq,
- struct i915_request *signal,
- void (*hook)(struct i915_request *rq,
- struct dma_fence *signal),
- gfp_t gfp)
+__await_execution(struct i915_request *rq,
+ struct i915_request *signal,
+ void (*hook)(struct i915_request *rq,
+ struct dma_fence *signal),
+ gfp_t gfp)
{
struct execute_cb *cb;
@@ -341,6 +341,8 @@ __i915_request_await_execution(struct i915_request *rq,
}
spin_unlock_irq(&signal->lock);
+ /* Copy across semaphore status as we need the same behaviour */
+ rq->sched.flags |= signal->sched.flags;
return 0;
}
@@ -824,31 +826,21 @@ already_busywaiting(struct i915_request *rq)
}
static int
-emit_semaphore_wait(struct i915_request *to,
- struct i915_request *from,
- gfp_t gfp)
+__emit_semaphore_wait(struct i915_request *to,
+ struct i915_request *from,
+ u32 seqno)
{
const int has_token = INTEL_GEN(to->i915) >= 12;
u32 hwsp_offset;
- int len;
+ int len, err;
u32 *cs;
GEM_BUG_ON(INTEL_GEN(to->i915) < 8);
- /* Just emit the first semaphore we see as request space is limited. */
- if (already_busywaiting(to) & from->engine->mask)
- goto await_fence;
-
- if (i915_request_await_start(to, from) < 0)
- goto await_fence;
-
- /* Only submit our spinner after the signaler is running! */
- if (__i915_request_await_execution(to, from, NULL, gfp))
- goto await_fence;
-
/* We need to pin the signaler's HWSP until we are finished reading. */
- if (intel_timeline_read_hwsp(from, to, &hwsp_offset))
- goto await_fence;
+ err = intel_timeline_read_hwsp(from, to, &hwsp_offset);
+ if (err)
+ return err;
len = 4;
if (has_token)
@@ -871,7 +863,7 @@ emit_semaphore_wait(struct i915_request *to,
MI_SEMAPHORE_POLL |
MI_SEMAPHORE_SAD_GTE_SDD) +
has_token;
- *cs++ = from->fence.seqno;
+ *cs++ = seqno;
*cs++ = hwsp_offset;
*cs++ = 0;
if (has_token) {
@@ -880,6 +872,28 @@ emit_semaphore_wait(struct i915_request *to,
}
intel_ring_advance(to, cs);
+ return 0;
+}
+
+static int
+emit_semaphore_wait(struct i915_request *to,
+ struct i915_request *from,
+ gfp_t gfp)
+{
+ /* Just emit the first semaphore we see as request space is limited. */
+ if (already_busywaiting(to) & from->engine->mask)
+ goto await_fence;
+
+ if (i915_request_await_start(to, from) < 0)
+ goto await_fence;
+
+ /* Only submit our spinner after the signaler is running! */
+ if (__await_execution(to, from, NULL, gfp))
+ goto await_fence;
+
+ if (__emit_semaphore_wait(to, from, from->fence.seqno))
+ goto await_fence;
+
to->sched.semaphores |= from->engine->mask;
to->sched.flags |= I915_SCHED_HAS_SEMAPHORE_CHAIN;
return 0;
@@ -993,6 +1007,58 @@ i915_request_await_dma_fence(struct i915_request *rq, struct dma_fence *fence)
return 0;
}
+static bool intel_timeline_sync_has_start(struct intel_timeline *tl,
+ struct dma_fence *fence)
+{
+ return __intel_timeline_sync_is_later(tl,
+ fence->context,
+ fence->seqno - 1);
+}
+
+static int intel_timeline_sync_set_start(struct intel_timeline *tl,
+ const struct dma_fence *fence)
+{
+ return __intel_timeline_sync_set(tl, fence->context, fence->seqno - 1);
+}
+
+static int
+__i915_request_await_execution(struct i915_request *to,
+ struct i915_request *from,
+ void (*hook)(struct i915_request *rq,
+ struct dma_fence *signal))
+{
+ int err;
+
+ /* Submit both requests at the same time */
+ err = __await_execution(to, from, hook, I915_FENCE_GFP);
+ if (err)
+ return err;
+
+ if (!to->engine->schedule)
+ return 0;
Hm is this about scheduler or preemption?
+
+ /* Squash repeated depenendices to the same timelines */
typo in dependencies
+ if (intel_timeline_sync_has_start(i915_request_timeline(to),
+ &from->fence))
+ return 0;
+
+ /* Ensure both start together [after all semaphores in signal] */
+ if (intel_engine_has_semaphores(to->engine))
+ err =__emit_semaphore_wait(to, from, from->fence.seqno - 1);
So the only thing preventing B' getting onto the same engine as A, as
soon as B enters a different engine, is the priority order?
And if I am reading this correctly, change relative to current state is
to let B' in, but spin on a semaphore, where currently we let it execute
the actual payload.
It's possible that we do need this if we said we would guarantee bonded
request would not execute before it's master. Have we made this
guarantee when discussing the uAPI? We must had..
But with no semaphores i915_request_await_start can not offer this hard
guarantee which then sounds like a problem. Do we need to only allow
bonding where we have semaphores?
+ else
+ err = i915_request_await_start(to, from);
+ if (err < 0)
+ return err;
+
+ /* Couple the dependency tree for PI on this exposed to->fence */
+ err = i915_sched_node_add_dependency(&to->sched, &from->sched);
+ if (err < 0)
+ return err;
+
+ return intel_timeline_sync_set_start(i915_request_timeline(to),
+ &from->fence);
+}
+
int
i915_request_await_execution(struct i915_request *rq,
struct dma_fence *fence,
@@ -1026,8 +1092,7 @@ i915_request_await_execution(struct i915_request *rq,
if (dma_fence_is_i915(fence))
ret = __i915_request_await_execution(rq,
to_request(fence),
- hook,
- I915_FENCE_GFP);
+ hook);
else
ret = i915_sw_fence_await_dma_fence(&rq->submit, fence,
I915_FENCE_TIMEOUT,
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_scheduler.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_scheduler.c
index ad6ff52bc316..00f5d107f2b7 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_scheduler.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_scheduler.c
@@ -492,7 +492,6 @@ void i915_sched_node_fini(struct i915_sched_node *node)
* so we may be called out-of-order.
*/
list_for_each_entry_safe(dep, tmp, &node->signalers_list, signal_link) {
- GEM_BUG_ON(!node_signaled(dep->signaler));
GEM_BUG_ON(!list_empty(&dep->dfs_link));
list_del(&dep->wait_link);
Regards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
