[PATCH v2] drm/sched: Further optimise drm_sched_entity_push_job
Philipp Stanner
pstanner at redhat.com
Thu Sep 26 08:15:58 UTC 2024
On Mon, 2024-09-23 at 15:35 +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>
> Ping Christian and Philipp - reasonably happy with v2? I think it's
> the
> only unreviewed patch from the series.
Howdy,
sry for the delay, I had been traveling.
I have a few nits below regarding the commit message. Besides, I'm OK
with that, thx for your work :)
>
> Regards,
>
> Tvrtko
>
> On 16/09/2024 18:30, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> > From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin at igalia.com>
> >
> > Having removed one re-lock cycle on the entity->lock in a patch
> > titled
> > "drm/sched: Optimise drm_sched_entity_push_job",
> > with only a tiny bit
> > larger refactoring we can do the same optimisation
Well, the commit message does not state which optimization that is. One
would have to look for the previous patch, which you apparently cannot
provide a commit ID for yet because it's not in Big Boss's branch.
In this case I am for including a sentence about what is being
optimized also because
> > on the rq->lock.
> > (Currently both drm_sched_rq_add_entity() and
> > drm_sched_rq_update_fifo_locked() take and release the same lock.)
> >
> > To achieve this we make drm_sched_rq_update_fifo_locked() and
it's not clear what the "this" that's being achieved is.
> > drm_sched_rq_add_entity() expect the rq->lock to be held.
> >
> > We also align drm_sched_rq_update_fifo_locked(),
> > drm_sched_rq_add_entity() and
> > drm_sched_rq_remove_fifo_locked() function signatures, by adding rq
> > as a
> > parameter to the latter.
> >
> > v2:
> > * Fix after rebase of the series.
> > * Avoid naming incosistency between drm_sched_rq_add/remove.
> > (Christian)
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin at igalia.com>
Reviewed-by: Philipp Stanner <pstanner at redhat.com>
> > Cc: Christian König <christian.koenig at amd.com>
> > Cc: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher at amd.com>
> > Cc: Luben Tuikov <ltuikov89 at gmail.com>
> > Cc: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost at intel.com>
> > Cc: Philipp Stanner <pstanner at redhat.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c | 12 ++++++++--
> > drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c | 29 ++++++++++++-------
> > -----
> > include/drm/gpu_scheduler.h | 3 ++-
> > 3 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c
> > index d982cebc6bee..8ace1f1ea66b 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c
> > @@ -515,9 +515,14 @@ struct drm_sched_job
> > *drm_sched_entity_pop_job(struct drm_sched_entity *entity)
> >
> > next = to_drm_sched_job(spsc_queue_peek(&entity-
> > >job_queue));
> > if (next) {
> > + struct drm_sched_rq *rq;
> > +
> > spin_lock(&entity->lock);
> > - drm_sched_rq_update_fifo_locked(entity,
> > + rq = entity->rq;
> > + spin_lock(&rq->lock);
> > + drm_sched_rq_update_fifo_locked(entity,
> > rq,
> > next-
> > >submit_ts);
> > + spin_unlock(&rq->lock);
> > spin_unlock(&entity->lock);
> > }
> > }
> > @@ -618,11 +623,14 @@ void drm_sched_entity_push_job(struct
> > drm_sched_job *sched_job)
> > sched = rq->sched;
> >
> > atomic_inc(sched->score);
> > +
> > + spin_lock(&rq->lock);
> > drm_sched_rq_add_entity(rq, entity);
> >
> > if (drm_sched_policy == DRM_SCHED_POLICY_FIFO)
> > - drm_sched_rq_update_fifo_locked(entity,
> > submit_ts);
> > + drm_sched_rq_update_fifo_locked(entity,
> > rq, submit_ts);
> >
> > + spin_unlock(&rq->lock);
> > spin_unlock(&entity->lock);
> >
> > drm_sched_wakeup(sched, entity);
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c
> > index 18a952f73ecb..5c83fb92bb89 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c
> > @@ -153,17 +153,18 @@ static __always_inline bool
> > drm_sched_entity_compare_before(struct rb_node *a,
> > return ktime_before(ent_a->oldest_job_waiting, ent_b-
> > >oldest_job_waiting);
> > }
> >
> > -static inline void drm_sched_rq_remove_fifo_locked(struct
> > drm_sched_entity *entity)
> > +static void drm_sched_rq_remove_fifo_locked(struct
I think the commit message should contain a short sentence about why
you removed the inline.
AKA "As we're at it, remove the inline function specifier from
drm_sched_rq_remove_fifo_locked() because XYZ"
P.
> > drm_sched_entity *entity,
> > + struct drm_sched_rq
> > *rq)
> > {
> > - struct drm_sched_rq *rq = entity->rq;
> > -
> > if (!RB_EMPTY_NODE(&entity->rb_tree_node)) {
> > rb_erase_cached(&entity->rb_tree_node, &rq-
> > >rb_tree_root);
> > RB_CLEAR_NODE(&entity->rb_tree_node);
> > }
> > }
> >
> > -void drm_sched_rq_update_fifo_locked(struct drm_sched_entity
> > *entity, ktime_t ts)
> > +void drm_sched_rq_update_fifo_locked(struct drm_sched_entity
> > *entity,
> > + struct drm_sched_rq *rq,
> > + ktime_t ts)
> > {
> > /*
> > * Both locks need to be grabbed, one to protect from
> > entity->rq change
> > @@ -171,17 +172,14 @@ void drm_sched_rq_update_fifo_locked(struct
> > drm_sched_entity *entity, ktime_t ts
> > * other to update the rb tree structure.
> > */
> > lockdep_assert_held(&entity->lock);
> > + lockdep_assert_held(&rq->lock);
> >
> > - spin_lock(&entity->rq->lock);
> > -
> > - drm_sched_rq_remove_fifo_locked(entity);
> > + drm_sched_rq_remove_fifo_locked(entity, rq);
> >
> > entity->oldest_job_waiting = ts;
> >
> > - rb_add_cached(&entity->rb_tree_node, &entity->rq-
> > >rb_tree_root,
> > + rb_add_cached(&entity->rb_tree_node, &rq->rb_tree_root,
> > drm_sched_entity_compare_before);
> > -
> > - spin_unlock(&entity->rq->lock);
> > }
> >
> > /**
> > @@ -213,15 +211,14 @@ static void drm_sched_rq_init(struct
> > drm_gpu_scheduler *sched,
> > void drm_sched_rq_add_entity(struct drm_sched_rq *rq,
> > struct drm_sched_entity *entity)
> > {
> > + lockdep_assert_held(&entity->lock);
> > + lockdep_assert_held(&rq->lock);
> > +
> > if (!list_empty(&entity->list))
> > return;
> >
> > - spin_lock(&rq->lock);
> > -
> > atomic_inc(rq->sched->score);
> > list_add_tail(&entity->list, &rq->entities);
> > -
> > - spin_unlock(&rq->lock);
> > }
> >
> > /**
> > @@ -235,6 +232,8 @@ void drm_sched_rq_add_entity(struct
> > drm_sched_rq *rq,
> > void drm_sched_rq_remove_entity(struct drm_sched_rq *rq,
> > struct drm_sched_entity *entity)
> > {
> > + lockdep_assert_held(&entity->lock);
> > +
> > if (list_empty(&entity->list))
> > return;
> >
> > @@ -247,7 +246,7 @@ void drm_sched_rq_remove_entity(struct
> > drm_sched_rq *rq,
> > rq->current_entity = NULL;
> >
> > if (drm_sched_policy == DRM_SCHED_POLICY_FIFO)
> > - drm_sched_rq_remove_fifo_locked(entity);
> > + drm_sched_rq_remove_fifo_locked(entity, rq);
> >
> > spin_unlock(&rq->lock);
> > }
> > diff --git a/include/drm/gpu_scheduler.h
> > b/include/drm/gpu_scheduler.h
> > index 80198e6cf537..b21806d5a8eb 100644
> > --- a/include/drm/gpu_scheduler.h
> > +++ b/include/drm/gpu_scheduler.h
> > @@ -596,7 +596,8 @@ void drm_sched_rq_add_entity(struct
> > drm_sched_rq *rq,
> > void drm_sched_rq_remove_entity(struct drm_sched_rq *rq,
> > struct drm_sched_entity *entity);
> >
> > -void drm_sched_rq_update_fifo_locked(struct drm_sched_entity
> > *entity, ktime_t ts);
> > +void drm_sched_rq_update_fifo_locked(struct drm_sched_entity
> > *entity,
> > + struct drm_sched_rq *rq,
> > ktime_t ts);
> >
> > int drm_sched_entity_init(struct drm_sched_entity *entity,
> > enum drm_sched_priority priority,
>
More information about the amd-gfx
mailing list