[PATCH v3 03/20] drm/sched: Barriers are needed for entity->last_scheduled

[Andrey Grodzovsky]

On 2021-07-08 1:37 p.m., Daniel Vetter wrote:
> It might be good enough on x86 with just READ_ONCE, but the write side
> should then at least be WRITE_ONCE because x86 has total store order.
>
> It's definitely not enough on arm.
>
> Fix this proplery, which means
> - explain the need for the barrier in both places
> - point at the other side in each comment
>
> Also pull out the !sched_list case as the first check, so that the
> code flow is clearer.
>
> While at it sprinkle some comments around because it was very
> non-obvious to me what's actually going on here and why.
>
> Note that we really need full barriers here, at first I thought
> store-release and load-acquire on ->last_scheduled would be enough,
> but we actually requiring ordering between that and the queue state.
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter at intel.com>
> Cc: "Christian König" <christian.koenig at amd.com>
> Cc: Steven Price <steven.price at arm.com>
> Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter at ffwll.ch>
> Cc: Andrey Grodzovsky <andrey.grodzovsky at amd.com>
> Cc: Lee Jones <lee.jones at linaro.org>
> Cc: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon at collabora.com>
> ---
>   drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++--
>   1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c
> index 64d398166644..4e1124ed80e0 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c
> @@ -439,8 +439,16 @@ struct drm_sched_job *drm_sched_entity_pop_job(struct drm_sched_entity *entity)
>   		dma_fence_set_error(&sched_job->s_fence->finished, -ECANCELED);
>   
>   	dma_fence_put(entity->last_scheduled);
> +
>   	entity->last_scheduled = dma_fence_get(&sched_job->s_fence->finished);
>   
> +	/*
> +	 * if the queue is empty we allow drm_sched_job_arm() to locklessly


Probably meant drm_sched_entity_select_rq here


> +	 * access ->last_scheduled. This only works if we set the pointer before
> +	 * we dequeue and if we a write barrier here.
> +	 */
> +	smp_wmb();
> +
>   	spsc_queue_pop(&entity->job_queue);
>   	return sched_job;
>   }
> @@ -459,10 +467,25 @@ void drm_sched_entity_select_rq(struct drm_sched_entity *entity)
>   	struct drm_gpu_scheduler *sched;
>   	struct drm_sched_rq *rq;
>   
> -	if (spsc_queue_count(&entity->job_queue) || !entity->sched_list)
> +	/* single possible engine and already selected */
> +	if (!entity->sched_list)
> +		return;
> +
> +	/* queue non-empty, stay on the same engine */
> +	if (spsc_queue_count(&entity->job_queue))
>   		return;


Shouldn't smp_rmb be here in between ? Given the queue is empty we want to
be certain we are reading the most recent value of entity->last_scheduled

Andrey



>   
> -	fence = READ_ONCE(entity->last_scheduled);
> +	fence = entity->last_scheduled;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * Only when the queue is empty are we guaranteed the the scheduler
> +	 * thread cannot change ->last_scheduled. To enforce ordering we need
> +	 * a read barrier here. See drm_sched_entity_pop_job() for the other
> +	 * side.
> +	 */
> +	smp_rmb();
> +
> +	/* stay on the same engine if the previous job hasn't finished */
>   	if (fence && !dma_fence_is_signaled(fence))
>   		return;
>