Re: [PATCH 10/27] drm/i915/guc: Introduce context parent-child relationship

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 8/20/2021 15:44, Matthew Brost wrote:
Introduce context parent-child relationship. Once this relationship is
created all pinning / unpinning operations are directed to the parent
context. The parent context is responsible for pinning all of its'
children and itself.

This is a precursor to the full GuC multi-lrc implementation but aligns
to how GuC mutli-lrc interface is defined - a single H2G is used
register / deregister all of the contexts simultaneously.

Subsequent patches in the series will implement the pinning / unpinning
operations for parent / child contexts.

v2:
  (Daniel Vetter)
   - Add kernel doc, add wrapper to access parent to ensure safety

Signed-off-by: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@xxxxxxxxx>
---
  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_context.c       | 29 ++++++++++++++
  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_context.h       | 39 +++++++++++++++++++
  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_context_types.h | 23 +++++++++++
  3 files changed, 91 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_context.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_context.c
index 508cfe5770c0..00d1aee6d199 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_context.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_context.c
@@ -404,6 +404,8 @@ intel_context_init(struct intel_context *ce, struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&ce->destroyed_link);
No need for this blank line?

+	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&ce->guc_child_list);
+
  	/*
  	 * Initialize fence to be complete as this is expected to be complete
  	 * unless there is a pending schedule disable outstanding.
@@ -418,10 +420,17 @@ intel_context_init(struct intel_context *ce, struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
void intel_context_fini(struct intel_context *ce)
  {
+	struct intel_context *child, *next;
+
  	if (ce->timeline)
  		intel_timeline_put(ce->timeline);
  	i915_vm_put(ce->vm);
+ /* Need to put the creation ref for the children */
+	if (intel_context_is_parent(ce))
+		for_each_child_safe(ce, child, next)
+			intel_context_put(child);
+
  	mutex_destroy(&ce->pin_mutex);
  	i915_active_fini(&ce->active);
  }
@@ -537,6 +546,26 @@ struct i915_request *intel_context_find_active_request(struct intel_context *ce)
  	return active;
  }
+void intel_context_bind_parent_child(struct intel_context *parent,
+				     struct intel_context *child)
+{
+	/*
+	 * Callers responsibility to validate that this function is used
+	 * correctly but we use GEM_BUG_ON here ensure that they do.
+	 */
+	GEM_BUG_ON(!intel_engine_uses_guc(parent->engine));
+	GEM_BUG_ON(intel_context_is_pinned(parent));
+	GEM_BUG_ON(intel_context_is_child(parent));
+	GEM_BUG_ON(intel_context_is_pinned(child));
+	GEM_BUG_ON(intel_context_is_child(child));
+	GEM_BUG_ON(intel_context_is_parent(child));
+
+	parent->guc_number_children++;
+	list_add_tail(&child->guc_child_link,
+		      &parent->guc_child_list);
+	child->parent = parent;
+}
+
  #if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DRM_I915_SELFTEST)
  #include "selftest_context.c"
  #endif
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_context.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_context.h
index c41098950746..c2985822ab74 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_context.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_context.h
@@ -44,6 +44,45 @@ void intel_context_free(struct intel_context *ce);
  int intel_context_reconfigure_sseu(struct intel_context *ce,
  				   const struct intel_sseu sseu);
+static inline bool intel_context_is_child(struct intel_context *ce)
+{
+	return !!ce->parent;
+}
+
+static inline bool intel_context_is_parent(struct intel_context *ce)
+{
+	return !!ce->guc_number_children;
+}
+
+static inline bool intel_context_is_pinned(struct intel_context *ce);
No point declaring 'static inline' if there is no function body?

+
+static inline struct intel_context *
+intel_context_to_parent(struct intel_context *ce)
+{
+        if (intel_context_is_child(ce)) {
+		/*
+		 * The parent holds ref count to the child so it is always safe
+		 * for the parent to access the child, but the child has pointer
has pointer -> has a pointer

+		 * to the parent without a ref. To ensure this is safe the child
+		 * should only access the parent pointer while the parent is
+		 * pinned.
+		 */
+                GEM_BUG_ON(!intel_context_is_pinned(ce->parent));
+
+                return ce->parent;
+        } else {
+                return ce;
+        }
+}
+
+void intel_context_bind_parent_child(struct intel_context *parent,
+				     struct intel_context *child);
+
+#define for_each_child(parent, ce)\
+	list_for_each_entry(ce, &(parent)->guc_child_list, guc_child_link)
+#define for_each_child_safe(parent, ce, cn)\
+	list_for_each_entry_safe(ce, cn, &(parent)->guc_child_list, guc_child_link)
Do these macros not need some kind of intel_context prefix? Or at least be 'for_each_guc_child' given the naming of the list/link fields? But maybe not if the guc_ is dropped from the variable names - see below.

+
  /**
   * intel_context_lock_pinned - Stablises the 'pinned' status of the HW context
   * @ce - the context
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_context_types.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_context_types.h
index fd338a30617e..0fafc178cf2c 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_context_types.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_context_types.h
@@ -213,6 +213,29 @@ struct intel_context {
  	 */
  	struct list_head destroyed_link;
+ /** anonymous struct for parent / children only members */
+	struct {
+		union {
+			/**
+			 * @guc_child_list: parent's list of of children
+			 * contexts, no protection as immutable after context
+			 * creation
+			 */
+			struct list_head guc_child_list;
+			/**
+			 * @guc_child_link: child's link into parent's list of
+			 * children
+			 */
+			struct list_head guc_child_link;
+		};
+
+		/** @parent: pointer to parent if child */
+		struct intel_context *parent;
+
+		/** @guc_number_children: number of children if parent */
+		u8 guc_number_children;
These are not really a GuC specific fields? The parent/child thing might only be necessary for GuC submission (although can you say it won't be required by any future backend, such as the DRM scheduler?) but it is a context level concept. None of the files changed in this patch are GuC specific. So no need for 'guc_' prefix? Alternatively, if it all really is completely GuC specific then the 'parent' field should also have the prefix? Or even just name the outer struct 'guc_family' or something and drop the prefixes from all the inner members.

John.

+	};
+
  #ifdef CONFIG_DRM_I915_SELFTEST
  	/**
  	 * @drop_schedule_enable: Force drop of schedule enable G2H for selftest




[Index of Archives]     [AMD Graphics]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux