[PATCH 1/4] drm/sched: optimize drm_sched_job_add_dependency

[Danilo Krummrich]

On Fri, May 23, 2025 at 04:11:39PM +0200, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
> On Fri, May 23, 2025 at 02:56:40PM +0200, Christian König wrote:
> > It turned out that we can actually massively optimize here.
> > 
> > The previous code was horrible inefficient since it constantly released
> > and re-acquired the lock of the xarray and started each iteration from the
> > base of the array to avoid concurrent modification which in our case
> > doesn't exist.
> > 
> > Additional to that the xas_find() and xas_store() functions are explicitly
> > made in a way so that you can efficiently check entries and if you don't
> > find a match store a new one at the end or replace existing ones.
> > 
> > So use xas_for_each()/xa_store() instead of xa_for_each()/xa_alloc().
> > It's a bit more code, but should be much faster in the end.
> 
> This commit message does neither explain the motivation of the commit nor what it
> does. It describes what instead belongs into the changelog between versions.

Sorry, this is wrong. I got confused, the commit message is perfectly fine. :)

The rest still applies though.

> Speaking of versioning of the patch series, AFAIK there were previous versions,
> but this series was sent as a whole new series -- why?
> 
> Please resend with a proper commit message, version and changelog. Thanks!
> 
> > Signed-off-by: Christian König <christian.koenig at amd.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c | 29 ++++++++++++++++++--------
> >  1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c
> > index f7118497e47a..cf200b1b643e 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c
> > @@ -871,10 +871,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_sched_job_arm);
> >  int drm_sched_job_add_dependency(struct drm_sched_job *job,
> >  				 struct dma_fence *fence)
> >  {
> > +	XA_STATE(xas, &job->dependencies, 0);
> >  	struct dma_fence *entry;
> > -	unsigned long index;
> > -	u32 id = 0;
> > -	int ret;
> >  
> >  	if (!fence)
> >  		return 0;
> > @@ -883,24 +881,37 @@ int drm_sched_job_add_dependency(struct drm_sched_job *job,
> >  	 * This lets the size of the array of deps scale with the number of
> >  	 * engines involved, rather than the number of BOs.
> >  	 */
> > -	xa_for_each(&job->dependencies, index, entry) {
> > +	xa_lock(&job->dependencies);
> > +	xas_for_each(&xas, entry, ULONG_MAX) {
> >  		if (entry->context != fence->context)
> >  			continue;
> >  
> >  		if (dma_fence_is_later(fence, entry)) {
> >  			dma_fence_put(entry);
> > -			xa_store(&job->dependencies, index, fence, GFP_KERNEL);
> > +			xas_store(&xas, fence);
> >  		} else {
> >  			dma_fence_put(fence);
> >  		}
> > -		return 0;
> > +		xa_unlock(&job->dependencies);
> > +		return xas_error(&xas);
> >  	}
> >  
> > -	ret = xa_alloc(&job->dependencies, &id, fence, xa_limit_32b, GFP_KERNEL);
> > -	if (ret != 0)
> > +retry:
> > +	entry = xas_store(&xas, fence);
> > +	xa_unlock(&job->dependencies);
> > +
> > +	/* There shouldn't be any concurrent add, so no need to loop again */
> 
> Concurrency shouldn't matter, xas_nomem() stores the pre-allocated memory in the
> XA_STATE not the xarray. Hence, I think we should remove the comment.
> 
> > +	if (xas_nomem(&xas, GFP_KERNEL)) {
> > +		xa_lock(&job->dependencies);
> > +		goto retry;
> 
> Please don't use a goto here, if we would have failed to allocate memory here,
> this would be an endless loop until we succeed eventually. It would be equal to:
> 
> 	while (!ptr) {
> 		ptr = kmalloc();
> 	}
> 
> Instead just take the lock and call xas_store() again.
> 
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	if (xas_error(&xas))
> >  		dma_fence_put(fence);
> > +	else
> > +		WARN_ON(entry);
> 
> Please don't call WARN_ON() here, this isn't fatal, we only need to return the
> error code.