[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 01/25] drm/i915/fbc: wait for a vblank instead of 50ms when enabling
Zanoni, Paulo R
paulo.r.zanoni at intel.com
Fri Jan 29 12:42:45 PST 2016
Em Sex, 2016-01-29 às 00:07 +0000, Rodrigo Vivi escreveu:
> Thanks for all the explanation.
>
> Makes sense now and everything looks fine for me.
>
> Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi at intel.com>
Thanks Rodrigo and Maarten for the reviews.
The CI part was discussed offline with Daniel, so I just pushed the
patches.
Thanks,
Paulo
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 10:08 AM Zanoni, Paulo R <paulo.r.zanoni at inte
> l.com> wrote:
> > Em Ter, 2016-01-26 às 17:44 +0000, Rodrigo Vivi escreveu:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 12:03 PM Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni at int
> > el.c
> > > om> wrote:
> > > > Instead of waiting for 50ms, just wait until the next vblank,
> > since
> > > > it's the minimum requirement. The whole infrastructure of FBC
> > is
> > > > based
> > > > on vblanks, so waiting for X vblanks instead of X milliseconds
> > > > sounds
> > > > like the correct way to go. Besides, 50ms may be less than a
> > vblank
> > > > on
> > > > super slow modes that may or may not exist.
> > > >
> > > > There are some small improvements in PC state residency (due to
> > the
> > > > fact that we're now using 16ms for the common modes instead of
> > > > 50ms),
> > > > but the biggest advantage is still the correctness of being
> > > > vblank-based instead of time-based.
> > > >
> > > > v2:
> > > > - Rebase after changing the patch order.
> > > > - Update the commit message.
> > > > v3:
> > > > - Fix bogus vblank_get() instead of vblank_count() (Ville).
> > > > - Don't forget to call drm_crtc_vblank_{get,put} (Chris,
> > Ville)
> > > > - Adjust the performance details on the commit message.
> > > > v4:
> > > > - Don't grab the FBC mutex just to grab the vblank (Maarten)
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni at intel.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h | 2 +-
> > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_fbc.c | 39
> > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
> > > > 2 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> > > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> > > > index 204661f..d8f21f0 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> > > > @@ -921,9 +921,9 @@ struct i915_fbc {
> > > >
> > > > struct intel_fbc_work {
> > > > bool scheduled;
> > > > + u32 scheduled_vblank;
> > > > struct work_struct work;
> > > > struct drm_framebuffer *fb;
> > > > - unsigned long enable_jiffies;
> > > > } work;
> > > >
> > > > const char *no_fbc_reason;
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_fbc.c
> > > > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_fbc.c
> > > > index a1988a4..3993b43 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_fbc.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_fbc.c
> > > > @@ -381,7 +381,17 @@ static void intel_fbc_work_fn(struct
> > > > work_struct *__work)
> > > > container_of(__work, struct drm_i915_private,
> > > > fbc.work.work);
> > > > struct intel_fbc_work *work = &dev_priv->fbc.work;
> > > > struct intel_crtc *crtc = dev_priv->fbc.crtc;
> > > > - int delay_ms = 50;
> > > > + struct drm_vblank_crtc *vblank = &dev_priv->dev-
> > > > >vblank[crtc->pipe];
> > > > +
> > > > + if (drm_crtc_vblank_get(&crtc->base)) {
> > > > + DRM_ERROR("vblank not available for FBC on pipe
> > > > %c\n",
> > > > + pipe_name(crtc->pipe));
> > > > +
> > > > + mutex_lock(&dev_priv->fbc.lock);
> > > > + work->scheduled = false;
> > > I couldn't understand this here... doesn't look related to
> > > s/time/vblank...
> > > could you please explain?
> >
> > Previously we were just dealing with "wait a certain amount of
> > time/jiffies", and for that we can just call the
> > delay/sleep/wait/etc
> > calls without needing any get/put calls.
> >
> > Now we'll wait for a certain number of vblanks, and we need to have
> > the
> > vblank interrupts enabled before we can wait for them. That's why
> > we
> > have the vblank get/put calls. And since get() can fail, we need an
> > error path.
> >
> > Under normal FBC operation, every vblank get/put call should
> > succeed
> > because the pipe's supposed to be running. But in case we actually
> > fail to get vblanks, we just exit from the work function. The way
> > we
> > signal "the work function is not running" is by setting work-
> > >scheduled
> > to false.
> >
> > >
> > > > + mutex_unlock(&dev_priv->fbc.lock);
> > > > + return;
> > > > + }
> > > >
> > > > retry:
> > > > /* Delay the actual enabling to let pageflipping cease
> > and
> > > > the
> > > > @@ -390,14 +400,16 @@ retry:
> > > > * vblank to pass after disabling the FBC before we
> > attempt
> > > > * to modify the control registers.
> > > > *
> > > > - * A more complicated solution would involve tracking
> > > > vblanks
> > > > - * following the termination of the page-flipping
> > sequence
> > > > - * and indeed performing the enable as a co-routine and
> > not
> > > > - * waiting synchronously upon the vblank.
> > > > - *
> > > > * WaFbcWaitForVBlankBeforeEnable:ilk,snb
> > > hm... is it still valid for newer platforms or we should put a if
> > gen
> > > <=6 on these checks?
> >
> > I tested this on BDW some time ago, and it seems we don't actually
> > need
> > the vblank wait anymore (although I didn't check the docs if we
> > still
> > need the wait). But I wanted to convert the code to use vblanks
> > before
> > optimizing it more. And the residency impact won't be big.
> >
> > >
> > > > + *
> > > > + * It is also worth mentioning that since work-
> > > > >scheduled_vblank can be
> > > > + * updated multiple times by the other threads, hitting
> > the
> > > > timeout is
> > > > + * not an error condition. We'll just end up hitting
> > the
> > > > "goto retry"
> > > > + * case below.
> > > > */
> > > > - wait_remaining_ms_from_jiffies(work->enable_jiffies,
> > > > delay_ms);
> > > > + wait_event_timeout(vblank->queue,
> > > > + drm_crtc_vblank_count(&crtc->base) != work-
> > > > >scheduled_vblank,
> > > > + msecs_to_jiffies(50));
> > > >
> > > > mutex_lock(&dev_priv->fbc.lock);
> > > >
> > > > @@ -406,8 +418,7 @@ retry:
> > > > goto out;
> > > >
> > > > /* Were we delayed again while this function was
> > sleeping?
> > > > */
> > > > - if (time_after(work->enable_jiffies +
> > > > msecs_to_jiffies(delay_ms),
> > > > - jiffies)) {
> > > > + if (drm_crtc_vblank_count(&crtc->base) == work-
> > > > >scheduled_vblank) {
> > > > mutex_unlock(&dev_priv->fbc.lock);
> > > > goto retry;
> > > > }
> > > > @@ -419,6 +430,7 @@ retry:
> > > >
> > > > out:
> > > > mutex_unlock(&dev_priv->fbc.lock);
> > > > + drm_crtc_vblank_put(&crtc->base);
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > static void intel_fbc_cancel_work(struct drm_i915_private
> > > > *dev_priv)
> > > > @@ -434,13 +446,20 @@ static void
> > > > intel_fbc_schedule_activation(struct intel_crtc *crtc)
> > > >
> > > > WARN_ON(!mutex_is_locked(&dev_priv->fbc.lock));
> > > >
> > > > + if (drm_crtc_vblank_get(&crtc->base)) {
> > > > + DRM_ERROR("vblank not available for FBC on pipe
> > > > %c\n",
> > > > + pipe_name(crtc->pipe));
> > > > + return;
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > /* It is useless to call intel_fbc_cancel_work() in
> > this
> > > > function since
> > > > * we're not releasing fbc.lock, so it won't have an
> > > > opportunity to grab
> > > > * it to discover that it was cancelled. So we just
> > update
> > > > the expected
> > > > * jiffy count. */
> > > > work->fb = crtc->base.primary->fb;
> > > > work->scheduled = true;
> > > > - work->enable_jiffies = jiffies;
> > > > + work->scheduled_vblank = drm_crtc_vblank_count(&crtc-
> > > > >base);
> > > > + drm_crtc_vblank_put(&crtc->base);
> > > >
> > > > schedule_work(&work->work);
> > > > }
> > > > --
> > > > 2.6.4
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Intel-gfx mailing list
> > > > Intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
> > > > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
> > > >
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
More information about the Intel-gfx
mailing list