On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 10:02:07AM +0000, Mateo Lozano, Oscar wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Daniel Vetter [mailto:daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Daniel Vetter > > Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 9:52 PM > > To: Mateo Lozano, Oscar > > Cc: Lespiau, Damien; Daniel Vetter; intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/50] drm/i915: > > s/intel_ring_buffer/intel_engine > > > > On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 02:17:23PM +0000, Mateo Lozano, Oscar wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Lespiau, Damien > > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 2:26 PM > > > > To: Daniel Vetter > > > > Cc: Mateo Lozano, Oscar; intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/50] drm/i915: > > > > s/intel_ring_buffer/intel_engine > > > > > > > > On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 03:28:27PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > > > On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 01:08:36PM +0100, oscar.mateo@xxxxxxxxx > > wrote: > > > > > > From: Oscar Mateo <oscar.mateo@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > > > In the upcoming patches, we plan to break the correlation > > > > > > between engines (a.k.a. rings) and ringbuffers, so it makes > > > > > > sense to refactor the code and make the change obvious. > > > > > > > > > > > > No functional changes. > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Oscar Mateo <oscar.mateo@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > If we rename stuff I'd vote for something close to Bspec language, > > > > > like CS. So maybe intel_cs_engine? > > > > > > Bikeshedding much, are we? :) > > > If we want to get closer to bspecish, intel_engine_cs would be better. > > > > I'm ok with that too ;-) > > > > > > Also, can we have such patches (and the like of "drm/i915: > > > > for_each_ring") pushed early when everyone is happy with them, they > > > > cause constant rebasing pain. > > > > > > I second that motion! > > > > Fully agreed - as soon as we have a rough sketch of where we want to go to I'll > > pull in the rename. Aside I highly suggest to do the rename with coccinelle and > > regerate it on rebases - that's much less error-prone than doing it by hand. > > -Daniel > > I propose the following code refactoring at a minimum. Even if I > abstract away all the "i915_gem_context.c" and "intel_ringbuffer.c" > functionality, and part of "i915_gem_execbuffer.c", to keep changes to > legacy code to a minimum, I still think the following changes are good > for the overall code: > > 1) s/intel_ring_buffer/intel_engine_cs > > Straight renaming: if the actual ring buffers can live either inside the > engine/ring (legacy ringbuffer submission) or inside the context > (execlists), it doesn´t make sense that the engine/ring is called > "intel_ring_buffer". Ack. Like I've said probably best done with coccinelle to cut down on potential mistakes. One thing this provokes is the obj->ring pointers we use all over the place. But I guess we can fix those up later on once this all has settled. > 2) Split the ringbuffers and the rings > > New struct: > > +struct intel_ringbuffer { > + struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj; > + void __iomem *virtual_start; > + > + u32 head; > + u32 tail; > + int space; > + int size; > + int effective_size; > + > + /** We track the position of the requests in the ring buffer, and > + * when each is retired we increment last_retired_head as the GPU > + * must have finished processing the request and so we know we > + * can advance the ringbuffer up to that position. > + * > + * last_retired_head is set to -1 after the value is consumed so > + * we can detect new retirements. > + */ > + u32 last_retired_head; > +}; > > And "struct intel_engine_cs" now groups all these elements into "buffer": > > - void __iomem *virtual_start; > - struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj; > - u32 head; > - u32 tail; > - int space; > - int size; > - int effective_size; > - u32 last_retired_head; > + struct intel_ringbuffer buffer; Is the idea to embed this new intel_ringbuffer struct into the lrc context structure so that we can share a bit of the low-level frobbing? I wonder whether we should switch right away to a pointer and leave the engine_cs->ring pointer NULL for lrc. That would be good for catching bugs where we accidentally mix up old and new styles. If you agree that a engine_cs->ring pointer would fit your design this is acked. Btw for such code design issues I usually refer to Rusty's api design manifesto: http://sweng.the-davies.net/Home/rustys-api-design-manifesto Oopsing at runtime is still considerid a bad level, but much better than silently failing. Again I recommend to look into coccinelle for the sed part of this. > 3) Introduce one context backing object per engine > > - struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj; > + struct { > + struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj; > + } engine[I915_NUM_RINGS]; > > Legacy code only ever uses engine[RCS], so I can use it everywhere in the existing code. Unsure about this. If I understand this correctly we only need to be able to support multiple backing objects for the same logical ring object (i.e. what is tracked by struct i915_hw_context) for the implicit per-filp context 0. But our handling of context id 0 is already magical, so we might as well add a bit more magic and shovel this array into the filp data structure: diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h index 108e1ec2fa4b..e34db43dead3 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h @@ -1825,7 +1825,9 @@ struct drm_i915_file_private { } mm; struct idr context_idr; - struct i915_hw_context *private_default_ctx; + /* default context for each ring, NULL if hw doesn't support hw contexts + * (or fancy new lrcs) on that ring. */ + struct i915_hw_context *private_default_ctx[I915_NUM_RINGS]; atomic_t rps_wait_boost; }; Of course we need to add an i915_hw_context->engine_cs pointer and we need to check that at execbuf to make sure we don't run contexts on the wrong engine. If we later on decide that we want to expose multiple hw contexts for !RCS to userspace we can easily add a bunch of ring flags to the context create ioctl. So this doesn't restrict us at all in the features we can support without jumping through hoops. Also if we'd shovel all per-ring lrcs into the same i915_hw_context structure then we'd need to rename that and drop the _hw part - it's no longer a 1:1 correspondence to an actual hw ring/context/lrc/whatever wizzbang thingy. Cheers, Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
