On 18/01/16 20:47, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 05:14:26PM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 18/01/16 16:53, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 03:02:25PM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
- while (!list_empty(&ring->request_list)) {
- struct drm_i915_gem_request *request;
-
- request = list_first_entry(&ring->request_list,
- struct drm_i915_gem_request,
- list);
-
- if (!i915_gem_request_completed(request, true))
+ list_for_each_entry_safe(req, next, &ring->request_list, list) {
+ if (!i915_gem_request_completed(req, true))
break;
- i915_gem_request_retire(request);
+ if (!i915.enable_execlists || !i915.enable_guc_submission) {
+ i915_gem_request_retire(req);
+ } else {
+ prev_req = list_prev_entry(req, list);
+ if (prev_req)
+ i915_gem_request_retire(prev_req);
+ }
}
To explain, this attempts to ensure that in GuC mode requests are only
unreferenced if there is a *following* *completed* request.
This way, regardless of whether they are using the same or different
contexts, we can be sure that the GPU has either completed the
context writing, or that the unreference will not cause the final
unpin of the context.
This is the first bogus step. contexts have to be unreferenced from
request retire, not request free. As it stands today, this forces us to
hold the struct_mutex for the free (causing many foul ups along the
line). The only reason why it is like that is because of execlists not
decoupling its context pinning inside request cancel.
What is the first bogus step? My idea of how to fix the GuC issue,
or the mention of final unreference in relation to GPU completing
the submission?
That we want to want to actually unreference the request. We want to
unpin the context at the appropriate juncture. At the moment, it looks
What would be the appropriate juncture? With GuC we don't have the
equivalent of context complete irq.
like that you are conflating those two steps: "requests are only
unreferenced". Using the retirement mechanism would mean coupling the
context unpinning into a subsequent request rather than defer retiring a
completed request, for example legacy uses active vma tracking to
accomplish the same thing. Aiui, the current claim is that we couldn't
do that since the guc may reorder contexts - except that we currently
use a global seqno so that would be bad on many levels.
I don't know legacy. :( I can see that request/context lifetime is
coupled there and associated with request creation to retirement.
Does it have the same problem of seqno signaling completion before the
GPU is done with writing out the context image and how does it solve that?
Regards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
