On 06/04/2020 10:12, Chris Wilson wrote:
Allow the caller to also wait upon the barriers stored in i915_active.
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_active.c | 60 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_active.h | 1 +
2 files changed, 61 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_active.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_active.c
index d5e24be759f7..048ab9edd2c2 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_active.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_active.c
@@ -542,6 +542,55 @@ static int __await_active(struct i915_active_fence *active,
return 0;
}
+struct wait_barrier {
+ struct wait_queue_entry base;
+ struct i915_active *ref;
+};
+
+static int
+barrier_wake(wait_queue_entry_t *wq, unsigned int mode, int flags, void *key)
+{
+ struct wait_barrier *wb = container_of(wq, typeof(*wb), base);
+
+ if (i915_active_is_idle(wb->ref)) { /* shared waitqueue, must check! */
Who shares it?
+ list_del(&wq->entry);
+ i915_sw_fence_complete(wq->private);
+ kfree(wq);
+ }
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
+static int __await_barrier(struct i915_active *ref, struct i915_sw_fence *fence)
+{
+ struct wait_barrier *wb;
+
+ wb = kmalloc(sizeof(*wb), GFP_KERNEL);
+ if (unlikely(!wb))
+ return -ENOMEM;
+
+ if (!i915_active_acquire_if_busy(ref)) {
+ kfree(wb);
+ return 0;
+ }
+
+ if (!i915_sw_fence_await(fence)) {
+ kfree(wb);
+ i915_active_release(ref);
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
+
+ wb->base.flags = 0;
+ wb->base.func = barrier_wake;
+ wb->base.private = fence;
+ wb->ref = ref;
+
+ add_wait_queue(__var_waitqueue(ref), &wb->base);
+
+ i915_active_release(ref);
+ return 0;
+}
+
static int await_active(struct i915_active *ref,
unsigned int flags,
int (*fn)(void *arg, struct dma_fence *fence),
@@ -570,6 +619,16 @@ static int await_active(struct i915_active *ref,
return err;
}
+ if (flags & I915_ACTIVE_AWAIT_BARRIER) {
+ err = flush_lazy_signals(ref);
+ if (err)
+ return err;
+
+ err = __await_barrier(ref, arg);
+ if (err)
+ return err;
Could have a single set of active_acquire_if_busy/release over the
previous and this new block. Not sure if that would help with any
atomicity concerns, or if there are such.
+ }
+
return 0;
}
@@ -582,6 +641,7 @@ int i915_request_await_active(struct i915_request *rq,
struct i915_active *ref,
unsigned int flags)
{
+ GEM_BUG_ON(flags & I915_ACTIVE_AWAIT_BARRIER);
Why is this an error?
return await_active(ref, flags, rq_await_fence, rq);
}
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_active.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_active.h
index ffafaa78c494..cf4058150966 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_active.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_active.h
@@ -195,6 +195,7 @@ int i915_request_await_active(struct i915_request *rq,
unsigned int flags);
#define I915_ACTIVE_AWAIT_EXCL BIT(0)
#define I915_ACTIVE_AWAIT_ACTIVE BIT(1)
+#define I915_ACTIVE_AWAIT_BARRIER BIT(2)
int i915_active_acquire(struct i915_active *ref);
bool i915_active_acquire_if_busy(struct i915_active *ref);
Regards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
