On Thu, Jul 22, 2021 at 10:42:26AM +0200, Christian König wrote:
> Am 21.07.21 um 21:03 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
> > On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 09:34:43AM -0700, Rob Clark wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 12:59 AM Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 12:32 AM Rob Clark <robdclark@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 1:55 PM Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 8:26 PM Rob Clark <robdclark@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 11:03 AM Christian König
> > > > > > > <ckoenig.leichtzumerken@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Hi Rob,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Am 20.07.21 um 17:07 schrieb Rob Clark:
> > > > > > > > > From: Rob Clark <robdclark@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Somehow we had neither ->wait() nor dma_fence_signal() calls, and no
> > > > > > > > > one noticed. Oops.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm not sure if that is a good idea.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The dma_fence->wait() callback is pretty much deprecated and should not
> > > > > > > > be used any more.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What exactly do you need that for?
> > > > > > > Well, the alternative is to track the set of fences which have
> > > > > > > signalling enabled, and then figure out which ones to signal, which
> > > > > > > seems like a lot more work, vs just re-purposing the wait
> > > > > > > implementation we already have for non-dma_fence cases ;-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Why is the ->wait() callback (pretty much) deprecated?
> > > > > > Because if you need it that means for your driver dma_fence_add_cb is
> > > > > > broken, which means a _lot_ of things don't work. Like dma_buf poll
> > > > > > (compositors have patches to start using that), and I think
> > > > > > drm/scheduler also becomes rather unhappy.
> > > > > I'm starting to page back in how this works.. fence cb's aren't broken
> > > > > (which is also why dma_fence_wait() was not completely broken),
> > > > > because in retire_submits() we call
> > > > > dma_fence_is_signaled(submit->hw_fence).
> > > > >
> > > > > But the reason that the custom wait function cleans up a tiny bit of
> > > > > jank is that the wait_queue_head_t gets signaled earlier, before we
> > > > > start iterating the submits and doing all that retire_submit() stuff
> > > > > (unpin/unref bo's, etc). I suppose I could just split things up to
> > > > > call dma_fence_signal() earlier, and *then* do the retire_submits()
> > > > > stuff.
> > > > Yeah reducing the latency there sounds like a good idea.
> > > > -Daniel
> > > >
> > > Hmm, no, turns out that isn't the problem.. or, well, it is probably a
> > > good idea to call drm_fence_signal() earlier. But it seems like
> > > waking up from wait_event_* is faster than wake_up_state(wait->task,
> > > TASK_NORMAL). I suppose the wake_up_state() approach still needs for
> > > the scheduler to get around to schedule the runnable task.
>
> As far as I know wake_up_state() tries to run the thread on the CPU it was
> scheduled last, while wait_event_* makes the thread run on the CPU who
> issues the wake by default.
>
> And yes I've also noticed this already and it was one of the reason why I
> suggested to use a wait_queue instead of the hand wired dma_fence_wait
> implementation.
The first versions had used wait_queue, but iirc we had some issues with
the callbacks and stuff and that was the reasons for hand-rolling. Or
maybe it was the integration of the lockless fastpath for
dma_fence_is_signalled().
> > > So for now, I'm going back to my own wait function (plus earlier
> > > drm_fence_signal())
> > >
> > > Before removing dma_fence_opps::wait(), I guess we want to re-think
> > > dma_fence_default_wait().. but I think that would require a
> > > dma_fence_context base class (rather than just a raw integer).
> > Uh that's not great ... can't we fix this instead of papering over it in
> > drivers? Aside from maybe different wakeup flags it all is supposed to
> > work exactly the same underneath, and whether using a wait queue or not
> > really shouldn't matter.
>
> Well it would have been nicer if we used the existing infrastructure instead
> of re-inventing stuff for dma_fence, but that chance is long gone.
>
> And you don't need a dma_fence_context base class, but rather just a flag in
> the dma_fence_ops if you want to change the behavior.
If there's something broken we should just fix it, not force everyone to
set a random flag. dma_fence work like special wait_queues, so if we
differ then we should go back to that.
-Daniel
>
> Regards,
> Christian.
>
> > -Daniel
> >
> > > BR,
> > > -R
> > >
> > > > > BR,
> > > > > -R
> > > > >
> > > > > > It essentially exists only for old drivers where ->enable_signalling
> > > > > > is unreliable and we paper over that with a retry loop in ->wait and
> > > > > > pray no one notices that it's too butchered. The proper fix is to have
> > > > > > a driver thread to guarantee that ->enable_signalling works reliable,
> > > > > > so you don't need a ->wait.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Can you type up a kerneldoc patch for dma_fence_ops->wait to hammer
> > > > > > this in please?
> > > > > > -Daniel
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > BR,
> > > > > > > -R
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > Christian.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Note that this removes the !timeout case, which has not been used in
> > > > > > > > > a long time.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Rob Clark <robdclark@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_fence.c | 59 +++++++++++++++++++--------------
> > > > > > > > > 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_fence.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_fence.c
> > > > > > > > > index cd59a5918038..8ee96b90ded6 100644
> > > > > > > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_fence.c
> > > > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_fence.c
> > > > > > > > > @@ -38,11 +38,10 @@ static inline bool fence_completed(struct msm_fence_context *fctx, uint32_t fenc
> > > > > > > > > return (int32_t)(fctx->completed_fence - fence) >= 0;
> > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > -/* legacy path for WAIT_FENCE ioctl: */
> > > > > > > > > -int msm_wait_fence(struct msm_fence_context *fctx, uint32_t fence,
> > > > > > > > > - ktime_t *timeout, bool interruptible)
> > > > > > > > > +static signed long wait_fence(struct msm_fence_context *fctx, uint32_t fence,
> > > > > > > > > + signed long remaining_jiffies, bool interruptible)
> > > > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > > > - int ret;
> > > > > > > > > + signed long ret;
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > if (fence > fctx->last_fence) {
> > > > > > > > > DRM_ERROR_RATELIMITED("%s: waiting on invalid fence: %u (of %u)\n",
> > > > > > > > > @@ -50,33 +49,34 @@ int msm_wait_fence(struct msm_fence_context *fctx, uint32_t fence,
> > > > > > > > > return -EINVAL;
> > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > - if (!timeout) {
> > > > > > > > > - /* no-wait: */
> > > > > > > > > - ret = fence_completed(fctx, fence) ? 0 : -EBUSY;
> > > > > > > > > + if (interruptible) {
> > > > > > > > > + ret = wait_event_interruptible_timeout(fctx->event,
> > > > > > > > > + fence_completed(fctx, fence),
> > > > > > > > > + remaining_jiffies);
> > > > > > > > > } else {
> > > > > > > > > - unsigned long remaining_jiffies = timeout_to_jiffies(timeout);
> > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > - if (interruptible)
> > > > > > > > > - ret = wait_event_interruptible_timeout(fctx->event,
> > > > > > > > > - fence_completed(fctx, fence),
> > > > > > > > > - remaining_jiffies);
> > > > > > > > > - else
> > > > > > > > > - ret = wait_event_timeout(fctx->event,
> > > > > > > > > - fence_completed(fctx, fence),
> > > > > > > > > - remaining_jiffies);
> > > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > - if (ret == 0) {
> > > > > > > > > - DBG("timeout waiting for fence: %u (completed: %u)",
> > > > > > > > > - fence, fctx->completed_fence);
> > > > > > > > > - ret = -ETIMEDOUT;
> > > > > > > > > - } else if (ret != -ERESTARTSYS) {
> > > > > > > > > - ret = 0;
> > > > > > > > > - }
> > > > > > > > > + ret = wait_event_timeout(fctx->event,
> > > > > > > > > + fence_completed(fctx, fence),
> > > > > > > > > + remaining_jiffies);
> > > > > > > > > + }
> > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > + if (ret == 0) {
> > > > > > > > > + DBG("timeout waiting for fence: %u (completed: %u)",
> > > > > > > > > + fence, fctx->completed_fence);
> > > > > > > > > + ret = -ETIMEDOUT;
> > > > > > > > > + } else if (ret != -ERESTARTSYS) {
> > > > > > > > > + ret = 0;
> > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > return ret;
> > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > +/* legacy path for WAIT_FENCE ioctl: */
> > > > > > > > > +int msm_wait_fence(struct msm_fence_context *fctx, uint32_t fence,
> > > > > > > > > + ktime_t *timeout, bool interruptible)
> > > > > > > > > +{
> > > > > > > > > + return wait_fence(fctx, fence, timeout_to_jiffies(timeout), interruptible);
> > > > > > > > > +}
> > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > /* called from workqueue */
> > > > > > > > > void msm_update_fence(struct msm_fence_context *fctx, uint32_t fence)
> > > > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > > > @@ -114,10 +114,19 @@ static bool msm_fence_signaled(struct dma_fence *fence)
> > > > > > > > > return fence_completed(f->fctx, f->base.seqno);
> > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > +static signed long msm_fence_wait(struct dma_fence *fence, bool intr,
> > > > > > > > > + signed long timeout)
> > > > > > > > > +{
> > > > > > > > > + struct msm_fence *f = to_msm_fence(fence);
> > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > + return wait_fence(f->fctx, fence->seqno, timeout, intr);
> > > > > > > > > +}
> > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > static const struct dma_fence_ops msm_fence_ops = {
> > > > > > > > > .get_driver_name = msm_fence_get_driver_name,
> > > > > > > > > .get_timeline_name = msm_fence_get_timeline_name,
> > > > > > > > > .signaled = msm_fence_signaled,
> > > > > > > > > + .wait = msm_fence_wait,
> > > > > > > > > };
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > struct dma_fence *
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Daniel Vetter
> > > > > > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
> > > > > > http://blog.ffwll.ch
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Daniel Vetter
> > > > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
> > > > http://blog.ffwll.ch
>
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch
