On 15/04/16 12:12, Dave Gordon wrote:
On 15/04/2016 11:04, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 14/04/16 18:19, Dave Gordon wrote:
With the new i915_gem_obj_pin_map() interface, it makes sense to keep
GuC objects (which are always pinned in memory and in the GGTT anyway)
mapped into kernel address space, rather than mapping and unmapping them
on each access.
This preliminary patch sets up the pin-and-map for all GuC-specific
objects, and updates the various setup/shutdown functions to use these
long-term mappings rather than doing their own kmap_atomic() calls.
Cc: <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Alex Dai <yu.dai@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Dave Gordon <david.s.gordon@xxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_guc_submission.c | 37
+++++++++++-------------------
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_guc.h | 1 +
2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_guc_submission.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_guc_submission.c
index da86bdb..f80f577 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_guc_submission.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_guc_submission.c
@@ -179,15 +179,11 @@ static void guc_init_doorbell(struct intel_guc
*guc,
struct i915_guc_client *client)
{
struct guc_doorbell_info *doorbell;
- void *base;
- base = kmap_atomic(i915_gem_object_get_page(client->client_obj,
0));
- doorbell = base + client->doorbell_offset;
+ doorbell = client->client_base + client->doorbell_offset;
- doorbell->db_status = 1;
+ doorbell->db_status = GUC_DOORBELL_ENABLED;
doorbell->cookie = 0;
-
- kunmap_atomic(base);
}
static int guc_ring_doorbell(struct i915_guc_client *gc)
@@ -256,16 +252,12 @@ static void guc_disable_doorbell(struct
intel_guc *guc,
{
struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = guc_to_i915(guc);
struct guc_doorbell_info *doorbell;
- void *base;
i915_reg_t drbreg = GEN8_DRBREGL(client->doorbell_id);
int value;
- base = kmap_atomic(i915_gem_object_get_page(client->client_obj,
0));
- doorbell = base + client->doorbell_offset;
-
- doorbell->db_status = 0;
+ doorbell = client->client_base + client->doorbell_offset;
Not 100% sure of the object lifetimes in GuC, but would it be even
simpler to store a pointer to struct struct guc_doorbell_info as
guc->doorbell ? There aren't that many call sites true, but kind of
looks logical at least from the outside.
Well probably, but that would be a separate patch. This is just dealing
with eliminating the repeated kmap/unmap calls.
Okay, just thought it may be easier to do it at once since it looked
really straightforward, like same amount of work and cleaner end result.
Also, maybe this helps remind people that these are actually parts of
the same object. There's just one allocated, but it encompasses the
process descriptor and the doorbell in the first page, and the workqueue
in the second and third.
I don't think anyone from the outside would care since it is all
internal guc code so it is free to define its rules with a nice comment
in the relevant structure definition.
- kunmap_atomic(base);
+ doorbell->db_status = GUC_DOORBELL_DISABLED;
I915_WRITE(drbreg, I915_READ(drbreg) & ~GEN8_DRB_VALID);
@@ -341,10 +333,8 @@ static void guc_init_proc_desc(struct intel_guc
*guc,
struct i915_guc_client *client)
{
struct guc_process_desc *desc;
- void *base;
- base = kmap_atomic(i915_gem_object_get_page(client->client_obj,
0));
- desc = base + client->proc_desc_offset;
+ desc = client->client_base + client->proc_desc_offset;
And the same maybe for this?
memset(desc, 0, sizeof(*desc));
@@ -361,8 +351,6 @@ static void guc_init_proc_desc(struct intel_guc
*guc,
desc->wq_size_bytes = client->wq_size;
desc->wq_status = WQ_STATUS_ACTIVE;
desc->priority = client->priority;
-
- kunmap_atomic(base);
}
/*
@@ -607,6 +595,7 @@ int i915_guc_submit(struct i915_guc_client *client,
* This is a wrapper to create a gem obj. In order to use it inside
GuC, the
* object needs to be pinned lifetime. Also we must pin it to gtt
space other
* than [0, GUC_WOPCM_TOP) because this range is reserved inside GuC.
+ * The object is also pinned & mapped into kernel address space.
*
* Return: A drm_i915_gem_object if successful, otherwise NULL.
*/
@@ -620,13 +609,14 @@ static struct drm_i915_gem_object
*gem_allocate_guc_obj(struct drm_device *dev,
if (!obj)
return NULL;
- if (i915_gem_object_get_pages(obj)) {
+ if (i915_gem_object_pin_map(obj) == NULL) {
This should be IS_ERR check.
OK, will update.
drm_gem_object_unreference(&obj->base);
return NULL;
}
if (i915_gem_obj_ggtt_pin(obj, PAGE_SIZE,
PIN_OFFSET_BIAS | GUC_WOPCM_TOP)) {
+ i915_gem_object_unpin_map(obj);
drm_gem_object_unreference(&obj->base);
return NULL;
}
@@ -649,6 +639,8 @@ static void gem_release_guc_obj(struct
drm_i915_gem_object *obj)
if (i915_gem_obj_is_pinned(obj))
i915_gem_object_ggtt_unpin(obj);
+ i915_gem_object_unpin_map(obj);
+
drm_gem_object_unreference(&obj->base);
}
@@ -729,6 +721,8 @@ static struct i915_guc_client
*guc_client_alloc(struct drm_device *dev,
goto err;
client->client_obj = obj;
+ client->client_base = obj->mapping;
It think outside code should not access obj->mapping directly but use
what i915_gem_object_pin_map has returned.
No, that would be quite inconvenient. You shouldn't need to hold
auxiliary information about an allocated object when you can get that
information directly from the object itself.
You can not unless you break the API layer. obj->mapping is IMHO private
to GEM and GuC should not touch it. Even must not IMHO.
Also, the function that does the pin-and-map doesn't have access to the
structure where the address is going to be cached, it just returns the
allocated-pinned-and-mapped object.
That sounds like a local issue which can be worked around by storing it
in the appropriate GuC data structure, no?
OTOH I have no objection to wrapping it an accessor function/macro.
void *i914_gem_object_mapped_addr(object) ?
returning NULL if object is not mapped?
I don't feel strongly either way. Question for Chris I suppose.
In this particular case I would look to avoid the need for it by storing
the address in my own data structure(s), if they have constructors and
destructors which start and end with i915_gem_object_pin_map/unmap
respectively.
+ WARN_ON(!client->client_base);
And this has already been handled at the i915_gem_object_pin_map call
site so I don't think it serves any purpose.
In case the obj->mapping *wasn't* the same value that was returned from
pin-and-map and checked.
Ah guard against touching forbidden parts. :)
Regards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
