On 26/05/2021 19:18, Matthew Brost wrote:
On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 10:21:05AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:On 25/05/2021 18:07, Matthew Brost wrote:On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 11:06:00AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:On 06/05/2021 20:14, Matthew Brost wrote:When running the GuC the GPU can't be considered idle if the GuC still has contexts pinned. As such, a call has been added in intel_gt_wait_for_idle to idle the UC and in turn the GuC by waiting for the number of unpinned contexts to go to zero. Cc: John Harrison <john.c.harrison@xxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@xxxxxxxxx> --- drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_mman.c | 3 +- drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt.c | 18 ++++ drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt.h | 2 + drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_requests.c | 22 ++--- drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_requests.h | 7 +- drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc.h | 4 + drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_ct.c | 1 + drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_ct.h | 4 + .../gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c | 91 ++++++++++++++++++- drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_uc.h | 5 + drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c | 1 + drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_evict.c | 1 + .../gpu/drm/i915/selftests/igt_live_test.c | 2 +- .../gpu/drm/i915/selftests/mock_gem_device.c | 3 +- 14 files changed, 137 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_mman.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_mman.c index 8598a1c78a4c..2f5295c9408d 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_mman.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_mman.c @@ -634,7 +634,8 @@ mmap_offset_attach(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj, goto insert; /* Attempt to reap some mmap space from dead objects */ - err = intel_gt_retire_requests_timeout(&i915->gt, MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT); + err = intel_gt_retire_requests_timeout(&i915->gt, MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT, + NULL); if (err) goto err; diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt.c index 8d77dcbad059..1742a8561f69 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt.c @@ -574,6 +574,24 @@ static void __intel_gt_disable(struct intel_gt *gt) GEM_BUG_ON(intel_gt_pm_is_awake(gt)); } +int intel_gt_wait_for_idle(struct intel_gt *gt, long timeout) +{ + long rtimeout; + + /* If the device is asleep, we have no requests outstanding */ + if (!intel_gt_pm_is_awake(gt)) + return 0; + + while ((timeout = intel_gt_retire_requests_timeout(gt, timeout, + &rtimeout)) > 0) { + cond_resched(); + if (signal_pending(current)) + return -EINTR; + } + + return timeout ? timeout : intel_uc_wait_for_idle(>->uc, rtimeout); +} + int intel_gt_init(struct intel_gt *gt) { int err; diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt.h index 7ec395cace69..c775043334bf 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt.h +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt.h @@ -48,6 +48,8 @@ void intel_gt_driver_release(struct intel_gt *gt); void intel_gt_driver_late_release(struct intel_gt *gt); +int intel_gt_wait_for_idle(struct intel_gt *gt, long timeout); + void intel_gt_check_and_clear_faults(struct intel_gt *gt); void intel_gt_clear_error_registers(struct intel_gt *gt, intel_engine_mask_t engine_mask); diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_requests.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_requests.c index 647eca9d867a..c6c702f236fa 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_requests.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_requests.c @@ -13,6 +13,7 @@ #include "intel_gt_pm.h" #include "intel_gt_requests.h" #include "intel_timeline.h" +#include "uc/intel_uc.h" static bool retire_requests(struct intel_timeline *tl) { @@ -130,7 +131,8 @@ void intel_engine_fini_retire(struct intel_engine_cs *engine) GEM_BUG_ON(engine->retire); } -long intel_gt_retire_requests_timeout(struct intel_gt *gt, long timeout) +long intel_gt_retire_requests_timeout(struct intel_gt *gt, long timeout, + long *rtimeout)What is 'rtimeout', I know remaining, but it can be more self-descriptive to start with.'remaining_timeout' it is.It feels a bit churny for what it is. How plausible would be alternatives to either change existing timeout to in/out, or measure sleep internally in this function, or just risk sleeping twice as long by passing the original timeout to uc idle as well?Originally had it just passing in the same value, got review feedback saying I should pass in the adjusted value. Hard to make everyone happy.Ok.{ struct intel_gt_timelines *timelines = >->timelines; struct intel_timeline *tl, *tn; @@ -195,22 +197,10 @@ out_active: spin_lock(&timelines->lock); if (flush_submission(gt, timeout)) /* Wait, there's more! */ active_count++; - return active_count ? timeout : 0; -} - -int intel_gt_wait_for_idle(struct intel_gt *gt, long timeout) -{ - /* If the device is asleep, we have no requests outstanding */ - if (!intel_gt_pm_is_awake(gt)) - return 0; - - while ((timeout = intel_gt_retire_requests_timeout(gt, timeout)) > 0) { - cond_resched(); - if (signal_pending(current)) - return -EINTR; - } + if (rtimeout) + *rtimeout = timeout; - return timeout; + return active_count ? timeout : 0; } static void retire_work_handler(struct work_struct *work) diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_requests.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_requests.h index fcc30a6e4fe9..4419787124e2 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_requests.h +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_requests.h @@ -10,10 +10,11 @@ struct intel_engine_cs; struct intel_gt; struct intel_timeline; -long intel_gt_retire_requests_timeout(struct intel_gt *gt, long timeout); +long intel_gt_retire_requests_timeout(struct intel_gt *gt, long timeout, + long *rtimeout); static inline void intel_gt_retire_requests(struct intel_gt *gt) { - intel_gt_retire_requests_timeout(gt, 0); + intel_gt_retire_requests_timeout(gt, 0, NULL); } void intel_engine_init_retire(struct intel_engine_cs *engine); @@ -21,8 +22,6 @@ void intel_engine_add_retire(struct intel_engine_cs *engine, struct intel_timeline *tl); void intel_engine_fini_retire(struct intel_engine_cs *engine); -int intel_gt_wait_for_idle(struct intel_gt *gt, long timeout); - void intel_gt_init_requests(struct intel_gt *gt); void intel_gt_park_requests(struct intel_gt *gt); void intel_gt_unpark_requests(struct intel_gt *gt); diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc.h index 485e98f3f304..47eaa69809e8 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc.h +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc.h @@ -38,6 +38,8 @@ struct intel_guc { spinlock_t irq_lock; unsigned int msg_enabled_mask; + atomic_t outstanding_submission_g2h; + struct { bool enabled; void (*reset)(struct intel_guc *guc); @@ -239,6 +241,8 @@ static inline void intel_guc_disable_msg(struct intel_guc *guc, u32 mask) spin_unlock_irq(&guc->irq_lock); } +int intel_guc_wait_for_idle(struct intel_guc *guc, long timeout); + int intel_guc_reset_engine(struct intel_guc *guc, struct intel_engine_cs *engine); diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_ct.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_ct.c index f1893030ca88..cf701056fa14 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_ct.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_ct.c @@ -111,6 +111,7 @@ void intel_guc_ct_init_early(struct intel_guc_ct *ct) INIT_LIST_HEAD(&ct->requests.incoming); INIT_WORK(&ct->requests.worker, ct_incoming_request_worker_func); tasklet_init(&ct->receive_tasklet, ct_receive_tasklet_func, (unsigned long)ct); + init_waitqueue_head(&ct->wq); } static inline const char *guc_ct_buffer_type_to_str(u32 type) diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_ct.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_ct.h index 660bf37238e2..ab1b79ab960b 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_ct.h +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_ct.h @@ -10,6 +10,7 @@ #include <linux/spinlock.h> #include <linux/workqueue.h> #include <linux/ktime.h> +#include <linux/wait.h> #include "intel_guc_fwif.h" @@ -68,6 +69,9 @@ struct intel_guc_ct { struct tasklet_struct receive_tasklet; + /** @wq: wait queue for g2h chanenl */ + wait_queue_head_t wq; + struct { u16 last_fence; /* last fence used to send request */ diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c index ae0b386467e3..0ff7dd6d337d 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c @@ -253,6 +253,74 @@ static inline void set_lrc_desc_registered(struct intel_guc *guc, u32 id, xa_store_irq(&guc->context_lookup, id, ce, GFP_ATOMIC); } +static int guc_submission_busy_loop(struct intel_guc* guc, + const u32 *action, + u32 len, + u32 g2h_len_dw, + bool loop) +{ + int err; + + err = intel_guc_send_busy_loop(guc, action, len, g2h_len_dw, loop); + + if (!err && g2h_len_dw) + atomic_inc(&guc->outstanding_submission_g2h); + + return err; +} + +static int guc_wait_for_pending_msg(struct intel_guc *guc, + atomic_t *wait_var, + bool interruptible, + long timeout) +{ + const int state = interruptible ? + TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE : TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE; + DEFINE_WAIT(wait); + + might_sleep(); + GEM_BUG_ON(timeout < 0); + + if (!atomic_read(wait_var)) + return 0; + + if (!timeout) + return -ETIME; + + for (;;) { + prepare_to_wait(&guc->ct.wq, &wait, state); + + if (!atomic_read(wait_var)) + break; + + if (signal_pending_state(state, current)) { + timeout = -ERESTARTSYS; + break; + } + + if (!timeout) { + timeout = -ETIME; + break; + } + + timeout = io_schedule_timeout(timeout); + } + finish_wait(&guc->ct.wq, &wait); + + return (timeout < 0) ? timeout : 0; +}See if it is possible to simplify all this with wait_var_event and wake_up_var.Let me check on that.+ +int intel_guc_wait_for_idle(struct intel_guc *guc, long timeout) +{ + bool interruptible = true; + + if (unlikely(timeout < 0)) + timeout = -timeout, interruptible = false; + + return guc_wait_for_pending_msg(guc, &guc->outstanding_submission_g2h, + interruptible, timeout); +} + static int guc_add_request(struct intel_guc *guc, struct i915_request *rq) { int err; @@ -279,6 +347,7 @@ static int guc_add_request(struct intel_guc *guc, struct i915_request *rq) err = intel_guc_send_nb(guc, action, len, g2h_len_dw); if (!enabled && !err) { + atomic_inc(&guc->outstanding_submission_g2h); set_context_enabled(ce); } else if (!enabled) { clr_context_pending_enable(ce); @@ -734,7 +803,7 @@ static int __guc_action_register_context(struct intel_guc *guc, offset, }; - return intel_guc_send_busy_loop(guc, action, ARRAY_SIZE(action), 0, true); + return guc_submission_busy_loop(guc, action, ARRAY_SIZE(action), 0, true); } static int register_context(struct intel_context *ce) @@ -754,7 +823,7 @@ static int __guc_action_deregister_context(struct intel_guc *guc, guc_id, }; - return intel_guc_send_busy_loop(guc, action, ARRAY_SIZE(action), + return guc_submission_busy_loop(guc, action, ARRAY_SIZE(action), G2H_LEN_DW_DEREGISTER_CONTEXT, true); } @@ -871,7 +940,9 @@ static int guc_context_pin(struct intel_context *ce, void *vaddr) static void guc_context_unpin(struct intel_context *ce) { - unpin_guc_id(ce_to_guc(ce), ce); + struct intel_guc *guc = ce_to_guc(ce); + + unpin_guc_id(guc, ce); lrc_unpin(ce); } @@ -894,7 +965,7 @@ static void __guc_context_sched_disable(struct intel_guc *guc, intel_context_get(ce); - intel_guc_send_busy_loop(guc, action, ARRAY_SIZE(action), + guc_submission_busy_loop(guc, action, ARRAY_SIZE(action), G2H_LEN_DW_SCHED_CONTEXT_MODE_SET, true); } @@ -1437,6 +1508,15 @@ g2h_context_lookup(struct intel_guc *guc, u32 desc_idx) return ce; } +static void decr_outstanding_submission_g2h(struct intel_guc *guc) +{ + if (atomic_dec_and_test(&guc->outstanding_submission_g2h)) { + smp_mb(); + if (waitqueue_active(&guc->ct.wq)) + wake_up_all(&guc->ct.wq);I keep pointing out this pattern is racy and at least needs comment why it is safe.There is a comment in wake queue code header saying why this is safe. I don't think we need to repeat this here.Yeah, _describing how to make it safe_, after it starts with: * NOTE: this function is lockless and requires care, incorrect usage _will_ * lead to sporadic and non-obvious failure. Then it also says: * Also note that this 'optimization' trades a spin_lock() for an smp_mb(), * which (when the lock is uncontended) are of roughly equal cost. I question the need to optimize this path since it means reader has to figure out if it is safe while a simple wake_up_all after atomic_dec_and_test would have done it. Is the case of no waiters a predominant one? It at least deserves a comment explaining why the optimisation is important.I just didn't want to add a spin_lock if there is known working code path without one and our code fits into that path. I can add a comment but I don't really think it necessary.
Lock already exists in the wake_up_all, it is not about adding your own.As premature optimisations are usually best avoided it is simply about how do you justify a):
+static void decr_outstanding_submission_g2h(struct intel_guc *guc)
+{
+ if (atomic_dec_and_test(&guc->outstanding_submission_g2h)) {
+ smp_mb();
+ if (waitqueue_active(&guc->ct.wq))
+ wake_up_all(&guc->ct.wq);
When the easy alternative (easy to read, easy to review, easy to
maintain) is b):
+static void decr_outstanding_submission_g2h(struct intel_guc *guc)
+{
+ if (atomic_dec_and_test(&guc->outstanding_submission_g2h))
+ wake_up_all(&guc->ct.wq);
For me as external reader the question seems to be, I will say it again,
is the case of no waiters a common one and is this a hot path to justify
avoiding a function call by adding the mental complexity explained in
the waitqueue_active comment? Here and in the other places in the GuC
backend waitqueue_active is used.
Regards, Tvrtko _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
