[PATCH v5 14/20] drm/sched: Don't store self-dependencies

[Christian König]

Am 05.08.21 um 15:25 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
> On Thu, Aug 5, 2021 at 3:18 PM Christian König <christian.koenig at amd.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Am 05.08.21 um 12:46 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
>>> This is essentially part of drm_sched_dependency_optimized(), which
>>> only amdgpu seems to make use of. Use it a bit more.
>>>
>>> This would mean that as-is amdgpu can't use the dependency helpers, at
>>> least not with the current approach amdgpu has for deciding whether a
>>> vm_flush is needed. Since amdgpu also has very special rules around
>>> implicit fencing it can't use those helpers either, and adding a
>>> drm_sched_job_await_fence_always or similar for amdgpu wouldn't be too
>>> onerous. That way the special case handling for amdgpu sticks even
>>> more out and we have higher chances that reviewers that go across all
>>> drivers wont miss it.
>> Well you should probably drop the sentence about the vm_flush, this is
>> completely unrelated.
>>
>> Additional to that I still don't think that this is a good idea.
>> Dependency handling is something completely driver specific.
>>
>> E.g. even when you have submitted jobs back to back they still might
>> need a cache flush in between and that is not only for amdgpu like this.
>>
>> What you can do is to optimize for while looking at the fences later on
>> and then note that you have done so and what the last hw fence is you
>> used instead.
> Out of 6 drivers using drm/sched 5 can use this. When we get i915
> over, that one will be added to the list. amdgpu can't use any of this
> anyway due to the vm_id allocation requirements, which is why I
> mention that. Also note that all the callbacks are still there, so you
> can just ignore this all and still build your own. Like amdgpu does.

The VMID allocation stuff is rather easy to handle, that's why I noted 
we should remove that sentence.

The problematic stuff is handling the cache flush and pipeline sync 
which you make impossible with this here.

> So I'm not sure what exactly your object is, aside from "this doesn't
> fit for amdgpu", which a) I know b) the commit message explains c)
> doesn't actually hurt amdgpu in the slightest. And we still get the
> benefit that for most drivers it's a nice optimization.

Well exactly that's what I wanted to avoid. We still can use this in 
amdgpu even with the VMID allocation stuff and I still hope to do so.

Can't we add this as a wrapper or similar?

Christian.

> -Daniel
>
>> Regards,
>> Christian.
>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Lucas Stach <l.stach at pengutronix.de>
>>> Acked-by: Melissa Wen <mwen at igalia.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter at intel.com>
>>> Cc: "Christian König" <christian.koenig at amd.com>
>>> Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter at ffwll.ch>
>>> Cc: Luben Tuikov <luben.tuikov at amd.com>
>>> Cc: Andrey Grodzovsky <andrey.grodzovsky at amd.com>
>>> Cc: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher at amd.com>
>>> ---
>>>    drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c | 7 +++++++
>>>    1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c
>>> index f77456929139..49e507f91ec0 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c
>>> @@ -660,6 +660,13 @@ int drm_sched_job_add_dependency(struct drm_sched_job *job,
>>>        if (!fence)
>>>                return 0;
>>>
>>> +     /* if it's a fence from us it's guaranteed to be earlier */
>>> +     if (fence->context == job->entity->fence_context ||
>>> +         fence->context == job->entity->fence_context + 1) {
>>> +             dma_fence_put(fence);
>>> +             return 0;
>>> +     }
>>> +
>>>        /* Deduplicate if we already depend on a fence from the same context.
>>>         * This lets the size of the array of deps scale with the number of
>>>         * engines involved, rather than the number of BOs.
>