On 30/07/2021 19:06, Matthew Brost wrote:
On Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 10:58:38AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 27/07/2021 19:20, Matthew Brost wrote:
With GuC submission contexts can get reordered (compared to submission
order), if contexts get reordered the sequential nature of the batches
releasing the next batch's semaphore in function timesliceN() get broken
resulting in the test taking much longer than if should. e.g. Every
contexts needs to be timesliced to release the next batch. Corking the
first submission until all the batches have been submitted should ensure
submission order.
The explanation sounds suspect.
Consider this comment from the test itself:
/*
* Create a pair of interlocking batches, that ping pong
* between each other, and only advance one step at a time.
* We require the kernel to preempt at each semaphore and
* switch to the other batch in order to advance.
*/
I'd say the test does not rely on no re-ordering at all, but relies on
context switch on an unsatisfied semaphore.
Yes, let do a simple example with 5 batches. Batch 0 releases batch's
semaphore 1, batch 1 releases batch's 2 semaphore, etc... If the batches
are seen in order the test should take 40 timeslices (8 semaphores in
each batch have to be released).
If the batches are in the below order:
0 2 1 3 4
Now we have 72 timeslices. Now imagine with 67 batches completely out of
order, the number timeslices can explode.
Yes that part is clear, issue is to understand why is guc waiting for
the timeslice to expire..
In the commit you seem to acknowledge GuC does not do that but instead ends
up waiting for the timeslice to expire, did I get that right? If so, why
I think GuC waits for the timeslice to expire if a semaphore is
unsatisfied, I have to double check on that. I thought that was what
execlists were doing too but I now see it has a convoluted algorithm to
yield the timeslice if subsequent request comes in and the ring is
waiting on a timeslice. Let me check with GuC team and see if they can
/ are doing something similiar. I was thinking the only to switch a
sempahore was clear CTX_CTRL_INHIBIT_SYN_CTX_SWITCH but that appears to
be incorrect.
.. so this will need clarifying with the firmware team.
With execlists we enable and react on GT_WAIT_SEMAPHORE_INTERRUPT. If
guc does not, or can not, do that that could be worrying since userspace
can and does use semaphores legitimately so making it pay the timeslice
penalty. Well actually that has an effect to unrelated clients as well,
not just the semaphore user.
For what is worth, after this change the run times of test are pretty
similar for execlists & GuC on TGL.
Yes, but the test was useful in this case since it found a weakness in
guc scheduling so it may not be the best approach to hide that.
Regards,
Tvrtko
Matt
does the GuC does not do that and can we fix it?
Regards,
Tvrtko
Signed-off-by: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@xxxxxxxxx>
---
tests/i915/gem_exec_schedule.c | 16 +++++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/tests/i915/gem_exec_schedule.c b/tests/i915/gem_exec_schedule.c
index f03842478..41f2591a5 100644
--- a/tests/i915/gem_exec_schedule.c
+++ b/tests/i915/gem_exec_schedule.c
@@ -597,12 +597,13 @@ static void timesliceN(int i915, const intel_ctx_cfg_t *cfg,
struct drm_i915_gem_execbuffer2 execbuf = {
.buffers_ptr = to_user_pointer(&obj),
.buffer_count = 1,
- .flags = engine | I915_EXEC_FENCE_OUT,
+ .flags = engine | I915_EXEC_FENCE_OUT | I915_EXEC_FENCE_SUBMIT,
};
uint32_t *result =
gem_mmap__device_coherent(i915, obj.handle, 0, sz, PROT_READ);
const intel_ctx_t *ctx;
int fence[count];
+ IGT_CORK_FENCE(cork);
/*
* Create a pair of interlocking batches, that ping pong
@@ -614,6 +615,17 @@ static void timesliceN(int i915, const intel_ctx_cfg_t *cfg,
igt_require(gem_scheduler_has_timeslicing(i915));
igt_require(intel_gen(intel_get_drm_devid(i915)) >= 8);
+ /*
+ * With GuC submission contexts can get reordered (compared to
+ * submission order), if contexts get reordered the sequential
+ * nature of the batches releasing the next batch's semaphore gets
+ * broken resulting in the test taking much longer than it should (e.g.
+ * every context needs to be timesliced to release the next batch).
+ * Corking the first submission until all batches have been
+ * submitted should ensure submission order.
+ */
+ execbuf.rsvd2 = igt_cork_plug(&cork, i915);
+
/* No coupling between requests; free to timeslice */
for (int i = 0; i < count; i++) {
@@ -624,8 +636,10 @@ static void timesliceN(int i915, const intel_ctx_cfg_t *cfg,
intel_ctx_destroy(i915, ctx);
fence[i] = execbuf.rsvd2 >> 32;
+ execbuf.rsvd2 >>= 32;
}
+ igt_cork_unplug(&cork);
gem_sync(i915, obj.handle);
gem_close(i915, obj.handle);
