On 29/05/2020 15:39, Chris Wilson wrote:
With the advent of preempt-to-busy, a request may still be on the GPU as we unwind. And in the case of a unpreemptible [due to HW] request, that request will remain indefinitely on the GPU even though we have returned it back to our submission queue, and cleared the active bit. We only run the execution callbacks on transferring the request from our submission queue to the execution queue, but if this is a bonded request that the HW is waiting for, we will not submit it (as we wait for a fresh execution) even though it is still being executed. As we know that there are always preemption points between requests, we know that only the currently executing request may be still active even though we have cleared the flag. However, we do not precisely know which request is in ELSP[0] due to a delay in processing events, and furthermore we only store the last request in a context in our state tracker. Fixes: 22b7a426bbe1 ("drm/i915/execlists: Preempt-to-busy") Testcase: igt/gem_exec_balancer/bonded-dual Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx> --- drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c | 49 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- 1 file changed, 48 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c index e5aba6824e26..c5d7220de529 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c @@ -363,6 +363,53 @@ static void __llist_add(struct llist_node *node, struct llist_head *head) head->first = node; }+static struct i915_request * const *+__engine_active(struct intel_engine_cs *engine) +{ + return READ_ONCE(engine->execlists.active); +} + +static bool __request_in_flight(const struct i915_request *signal) +{ + struct i915_request * const *port, *rq; + bool inflight = false; + + if (!i915_request_is_ready(signal)) + return false; + + /* + * Even if we have unwound the request, it may still be on + * the GPU (preempt-to-busy). If that request is inside an + * unpreemptible critical section, it will not be removed. Some + * GPU functions may even be stuck waiting for the paired request + * (__await_execution) to be submitted and cannot be preempted + * until the bond is executing. + * + * As we know that there are always preemption points between + * requests, we know that only the currently executing request + * may be still active even though we have cleared the flag. + * However, we can't rely on our tracking of ELSP[0] to known + * which request is currently active and so maybe stuck, as + * the tracking maybe an event behind. Instead assume that + * if the context is still inflight, then it is still active + * even if the active flag has been cleared. + */ + if (!intel_context_inflight(signal->context)) + return false; + + rcu_read_lock(); + for (port = __engine_active(signal->engine); (rq = *port); port++) { + if (rq->context == signal->context) { + inflight = i915_seqno_passed(rq->fence.seqno, + signal->fence.seqno); + break; + } + } + rcu_read_unlock(); + + return inflight; +} + static int __await_execution(struct i915_request *rq, struct i915_request *signal, @@ -393,7 +440,7 @@ __await_execution(struct i915_request *rq, }spin_lock_irq(&signal->lock);- if (i915_request_is_active(signal)) { + if (i915_request_is_active(signal) || __request_in_flight(signal)) { if (hook) { hook(rq, &signal->fence); i915_request_put(signal);
Reviewed-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx> Regards, Tvrtko _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
