On 03/06/2021 04:41, Matthew Brost wrote:
On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 08:57:02PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 5:27 PM Tvrtko Ursulin
<tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 25/05/2021 17:45, Matthew Brost wrote:
On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 11:32:26AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
* Context pinning code with it's magical two adds, subtract and cmpxchg is
dodgy as well.
Daniele tried to remove this and it proved quite difficult + created
even more races in the backend code. This was prior to the pre-pin and
post-unpin code which makes this even more difficult to fix as I believe
these functions would need to be removed first. Not saying we can't
revisit this someday but I personally really like it - it is a clever
way to avoid reentering the pin / unpin code while asynchronous things
are happening rather than some complex locking scheme. Lastly, this code
has proved incredibly stable as I don't think we've had to fix a single
thing in this area since we've been using this code internally.
Pretty much same as above. The code like:
static inline void __intel_context_unpin(struct intel_context *ce)
{
if (!ce->ops->sched_disable) {
__intel_context_do_unpin(ce, 1);
} else {
while (!atomic_add_unless(&ce->pin_count, -1, 1)) {
if (atomic_cmpxchg(&ce->pin_count, 1, 2) == 1) {
ce->ops->sched_disable(ce);
break;
}
}
}
}
That's pretty much impenetrable for me and the only thing I can think of
here is **ALARM** must be broken! See what others think..
Yea, probably should add a comment:
/*
* If the context has the sched_disable function, it isn't safe to unpin
* until this function completes. This function is allowed to complete
* asynchronously too. To avoid this function from being entered twice
* and move ownership of the unpin to this function's completion, adjust
* the pin count to 2 before it is entered. When this function completes
* the context can call intel_context_sched_unpin which decrements the
* pin count by 2 potentially resulting in an unpin.
*
* A while loop is needed to ensure the atomicity of the pin count. e.g.
* The below if / else statement has a race:
*
* if (atomic_cmpxchg(&ce->pin_count, 1, 2) == 1)
* ce->ops->sched_disable(ce);
* else
* atomic_dec(ce, 1);
*
* Two threads could simultaneously fail the if clause resulting in the
* pin_count going to 0 with scheduling enabled + the context pinned.
*/
I have many questions here..
How time bound is the busy loop?
In guc_context_sched_disable the case where someone pins after the magic
2 has been set is handled.
But what is pin_count got to 2 legitimately, via the unpin and pin
between the atomic_cmpxchg in __intel_context_unpin and relevant lines
in guc_context_sched_disable get to execute?
Why is the pin_count dec in guc_context_sched_disable under the
ce->guc_state.lock?
What is the point of:
enabled = context_enabled(ce);
if (unlikely(!enabled || submission_disabled(guc))) {
if (!enabled)
clr_context_enabled(ce);
Reads like clearing the enabled bit if it is not set?!
Why is:
static inline void clr_context_enabled(struct intel_context *ce)
{
atomic_and((u32)~SCHED_STATE_NO_LOCK_ENABLED,
&ce->guc_sched_state_no_lock);
}
Operating on a field called "guc_sched_state_no_lock" (no lock!) while
the caller is holding guc_state.lock while manipulating that lock.
Regards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
