On 10/12/2019 13:06, Chris Wilson wrote:
Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2019-12-10 12:41:36)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.Even if we model ourselves after CFS, we still have exceptional schedulers like RR or DEADLINE. So priority inversion will remain an issue, and the way we are tackling that is by tracking dependencies. And which semaphore do you mean? Ours or userspace? Both are ultimately effectively countered by timeslicing, the question is how to decide when to slice and how to order slices.
I was thinking about our semaphore. Then the fact we would never shuffle contexts around, but keep priority order would prevent A ever preempting B' again. Being how they are both blocked, if we round-robin them they would eventually progress. But yeah, it's still of course infinitely better to track dependencies and execute things in efficient order.
Anyway the old joke about this being a 'prescheduler' still applies -- we don't yet have a scheduler worthy of the name.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?It's about dependency tracking, and the lack of it.+ + /* 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?No. Now B' has a dependency on A, so B' is always after A.
Yes, true.
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..We did not make that guarantee as the assumption was that all fences for B would be passed to B'. However, the since fence slot for IN/SUBMIT
I think we must have made a guarantee B' won't start executing before B. That is kind of the central point. Only thing we did not do is guarantee/made effort to start B' together with B. But guarantee got defeated by ELSP and later timeslicing/preemption.
Previously, miss was if B was in ELSP[1] B' could be put in ELSP[0] (different engines). Which is wrong. And with timeslicing/preemption even more so.
So having await_started or semaphore looks correct in that respect. And scheduler deps cover the A in chain. So I think it's good with this patch.
precludes that (I was thinking you could just merge them, but the interpretation of the merged fence would still be from the IN/SUBMIT flag), and we haven't extended syncobj yet. We can completely invalidate that argument by the simple use of an FENCE_OUT for B'. That gives us a massive hole in the PI tree, and userspace deadlocks galore.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?No. If we don't have semaphores, then we aren't using semaphores in B. So then B and B' are scheduled to start the payload at the same time, since they have the same fences. Coordination of the payload itself is beyond our control -- we've just made sure that all dependencies are met before the payload began.
Yes, without semaphores await_start is a submit fence, I missed that. Regards, Tvrtko _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
