[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 5/8] drm/i915/guc: Move lrc desc setup to where it is needed

[John Harrison]

On 2/23/2022 18:03, Ceraolo Spurio, Daniele wrote:
> On 2/23/2022 12:23 PM, John Harrison wrote:
>> On 2/22/2022 17:12, Ceraolo Spurio, Daniele wrote:
>>> On 2/17/2022 3:52 PM, John.C.Harrison at Intel.com wrote:
>>>> From: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison at Intel.com>
>>>>
>>>> The LRC descriptor was being initialised early on in the context
>>>> registration sequence. It could then be determined that the actual
>>>> registration needs to be delayed and the descriptor would be wiped
>>>> out. This is inefficient, so move the setup to later in the process
>>>> after the point of no return.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison at Intel.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c | 11 +++++++++--
>>>>   1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c 
>>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c
>>>> index 0ab2d1a24bf6..aa74ec74194a 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c
>>>> @@ -2153,6 +2153,8 @@ static int 
>>>> __guc_action_register_context(struct intel_guc *guc,
>>>>                            0, loop);
>>>>   }
>>>>   +static void prepare_context_registration_info(struct 
>>>> intel_context *ce);
>>>> +
>>>>   static int register_context(struct intel_context *ce, bool loop)
>>>>   {
>>>>       struct intel_guc *guc = ce_to_guc(ce);
>>>> @@ -2163,6 +2165,8 @@ static int register_context(struct 
>>>> intel_context *ce, bool loop)
>>>>       GEM_BUG_ON(intel_context_is_child(ce));
>>>>       trace_intel_context_register(ce);
>>>>   +    prepare_context_registration_info(ce);
>>>> +
>>>>       if (intel_context_is_parent(ce))
>>>>           ret = __guc_action_register_multi_lrc(guc, ce, 
>>>> ce->guc_id.id,
>>>>                                 offset, loop);
>>>> @@ -2246,7 +2250,6 @@ static void 
>>>> prepare_context_registration_info(struct intel_context *ce)
>>>>       struct intel_context *child;
>>>>         GEM_BUG_ON(!engine->mask);
>>>> -    GEM_BUG_ON(!sched_state_is_init(ce));
>>>>         /*
>>>>        * Ensure LRC + CT vmas are is same region as write barrier 
>>>> is done
>>>> @@ -2314,9 +2317,13 @@ static int try_context_registration(struct 
>>>> intel_context *ce, bool loop)
>>>>       bool context_registered;
>>>>       int ret = 0;
>>>>   +    GEM_BUG_ON(!sched_state_is_init(ce));
>>>> +
>>>>       context_registered = ctx_id_mapped(guc, desc_idx);
>>>>   -    prepare_context_registration_info(ce);
>>>> +    if (context_registered)
>>>> +        clr_ctx_id_mapping(guc, desc_idx);
>>>> +    set_ctx_id_mapping(guc, desc_idx, ce);
>>>
>>> I think we can do the clr unconditionally. Also, should we drop the 
>>> clr/set pair in prepare_context_registration_info? it shouldn't be 
>>> needed, unless I'm missing a path where we don;t pass through here.
>>>
>>> Daniele
>> I don't believe so.
>>
>> The point is that the context id might have changed (it got stolen, 
>> re-used, etc. - all the state machine code below can cause aborts and 
>> retries and such like if something is pending and the register needs 
>> to be delayed). So we need to clear out the old mapping and add a new 
>> one to be safe. Also, I'm not sure if it is safe to do a xa_store to 
>> an already used entry as an update or if you are supposed to clear it 
>> first? But that's what the code did before and I'm trying to not 
>> change any actual behaviour here.
>
> I was comparing with previous behavior. before this patch, we only do 
> the setting of the ctx_id here (inside 
> prepare_context_registration_info) and you're not changing any of the 
> abort/retry behavior, so if it was enough before it should be enough now.
Hmm, I think I must have confused myself with the intermediate steps 
along the way. Yes, it looks like the clr/set in prepare is redundant by 
the end.

>
> Regarding the xa ops, we did an unconditional clear before, so it 
> should be ok to just do the same and have the clear and set back to 
> back without checking if the context ID was already in use or not.
Actually, I was thinking you meant to drop the clr completely rather 
than just drop the condition. Yeah, that sounds fine.

Will post an update.

John.

>
> Daniele
>
>>
>> John.
>>
>>>
>>>>         /*
>>>>        * The context_lookup xarray is used to determine if the 
>>>> hardware
>>>
>>
>