Quoting Chris Wilson (2021-01-26 13:24:07)
> Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2021-01-26 13:15:29)
> >
> > On 26/01/2021 11:55, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2021-01-26 11:40:24)
> > >>
> > >> On 26/01/2021 11:30, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > >>> Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2021-01-26 11:12:53)
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On 25/01/2021 14:01, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > >>>>> +static void ipi_schedule(struct work_struct *wrk)
> > >>>>> +{
> > >>>>> + struct i915_sched_ipi *ipi = container_of(wrk, typeof(*ipi), work);
> > >>>>> + struct i915_request *rq = xchg(&ipi->list, NULL);
> > >>>>> +
> > >>>>> + do {
> > >>>>> + struct i915_request *rn = xchg(&rq->sched.ipi_link, NULL);
> > >>>>> + int prio;
> > >>>>> +
> > >>>>> + prio = ipi_get_prio(rq);
> > >>>>> +
> > >>>>> + /*
> > >>>>> + * For cross-engine scheduling to work we rely on one of two
> > >>>>> + * things:
> > >>>>> + *
> > >>>>> + * a) The requests are using dma-fence fences and so will not
> > >>>>> + * be scheduled until the previous engine is completed, and
> > >>>>> + * so we cannot cross back onto the original engine and end up
> > >>>>> + * queuing an earlier request after the first (due to the
> > >>>>> + * interrupted DFS).
> > >>>>> + *
> > >>>>> + * b) The requests are using semaphores and so may be already
> > >>>>> + * be in flight, in which case if we cross back onto the same
> > >>>>> + * engine, we will already have put the interrupted DFS into
> > >>>>> + * the priolist, and the continuation will now be queued
> > >>>>> + * afterwards [out-of-order]. However, since we are using
> > >>>>> + * semaphores in this case, we also perform yield on semaphore
> > >>>>> + * waits and so will reorder the requests back into the correct
> > >>>>> + * sequence. This occurrence (of promoting a request chain
> > >>>>> + * that crosses the engines using semaphores back unto itself)
> > >>>>> + * should be unlikely enough that it probably does not matter...
> > >>>>> + */
> > >>>>> + local_bh_disable();
> > >>>>> + i915_request_set_priority(rq, prio);
> > >>>>> + local_bh_enable();
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Is it that important and wouldn't the priority order restore eventually
> > >>>> due timeslicing?
> > >>>
> > >>> There would be a window in which we executed userspace code
> > >>> out-of-order. That's enough to scare me! However, for our PI dependency
> > >>> chains it should not matter as the only time we do submit out-of-order,
> > >>> we are stuck on _our_ semaphore that cannot be resolved until the
> > >>> requests are back in-order.
> > >>
> > >> Out of order how? Within a single timeline?! I though only with
> > >> incomplete view of priority inheritance, which in my mind could only
> > >> cause deadlocks (if no timeslicing). But really really out of order?
> > >
> > > Fences between timelines. Let's say we have 3 requests, A,B,C all with
> > > sequential fencing (C depends on B depends on A), but B is on a
> > > different engine to (A, C) and we are using semaphores to submit early.
> > > If we bump the priority of C, we see it crosses the engine to B, and send
> > > an ipi_priority, but set C to be higher priority than A. So we now
> > > schedule C before A!
> >
> > Yeah so different timelines, I think that's not a huge problem to start
> > with. Only if things were non-preemptable.
>
> And for the special case where it may occur, it's inside an preemptible
> section (under our control).
>
> > > However, since C depends on B which depends on A, C is stuck on its
> > > semaphore from B, and B is waiting for A. As soon as A is set to the
> > > same priority as C (after a couple of ipi_priority()), we rerun the
> > > scheduler see that C has a semaphore-yield (or eventually timeslice
> > > expired) and so run A before C, and order is restored.
> > >
> > >>> I've tried to trick this into causing problems with the
> > >>> i915_selftest/igt_schedule_cycle and gem_exec_schedule/noreorder.
> > >>> Fortunately for my sanity, neither test have caught any problems.
> > >>>
> > >>> This is the handwaving part of removing the global lock.
> > >>>
> > >>>>> + /*
> > >>>>> + * If we are setting the priority before being submitted, see if we
> > >>>>> + * can quickly adjust our own priority in-situ and avoid taking
> > >>>>> + * the contended engine->active.lock. If we need priority inheritance,
> > >>>>> + * take the slow route.
> > >>>>> + */
> > >>>>> + if (rq_prio(rq) == I915_PRIORITY_INVALID) {
> > >>>>> + struct i915_dependency *p;
> > >>>>> +
> > >>>>> + rcu_read_lock();
> > >>>>> + for_each_signaler(p, rq) {
> > >>>>> + struct i915_request *s =
> > >>>>> + container_of(p->signaler, typeof(*s), sched);
> > >>>>> +
> > >>>>> + if (rq_prio(s) >= prio)
> > >>>>> + continue;
> > >>>>> +
> > >>>>> + if (__i915_request_is_complete(s))
> > >>>>> + continue;
> > >>>>> +
> > >>>>> + break;
> > >>>>> + }
> > >>>>> + rcu_read_unlock();
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Exit this loop with a first lower priority incomplete signaler. What
> > >>>> does the block below then do? Feels like it needs a comment.
> > >>>
> > >>> I thought I had sufficiently explained that in the comment above.
> > >>>
> > >>> /* Update priority in place if no PI required */
> > >>>>> + if (&p->signal_link == &rq->sched.signalers_list &&
> > >>>>> + cmpxchg(&rq->sched.attr.priority,
> > >>>>> + I915_PRIORITY_INVALID,
> > >>>>> + prio) == I915_PRIORITY_INVALID)
> > >>>>> + return;
> > >>>
> > >>> It could do a few more tricks to change the priority in-place a second
> > >>> time, but I did not think that would be frequent enough to matter.
> > >>> Whereas we always adjust the priority from INVALID once before
> > >>> submission, and avoiding taking the lock then does make a difference to
> > >>> the profiles.
> > >>
> > >> To start with, if p is NULL or un-initialized (can be, no?) then
> > >> relationship of &p->signal_link to &rq->sched.signalers_list escapes me.
> > >
> > > p is constrained to be a member of the signalers_list or its head.
> >
> > Is it defined list_for_each_entry exits with pos set? It is in
> > implementation but I don't know why it would have to be. Could you
> > change this to some form of list_empty or a descriptively named helper
> > for clarity?
>
> It as defined as the macro gets.
>
> There's a list_entry_is_head(). That sounds new.
>
> commit e130816164e244b692921de49771eeb28205152d
> Author: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Thu Oct 15 20:11:31 2020 -0700
>
> include/linux/list.h: add a macro to test if entry is pointing to the head
#define all_dependencies_checked(p, rq) \
list_entry_is_head(p, &(rq)->sched.signalers_list, signal_link)
/* Update priority in place if no PI required */
if (all_dependencies_checked(p, rq) &&
cmpxchg(&rq->sched.attr.priority,
I915_PRIORITY_INVALID,
prio) == I915_PRIORITY_INVALID)
return;
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
