[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2 5/6] drm/i915/guc: use for_each_engine_id() where appropriate
Dave Gordon
david.s.gordon at intel.com
Fri Jul 22 10:45:41 UTC 2016
On 22/07/16 11:04, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>
> On 21/07/16 19:15, Dave Gordon wrote:
>> Now that host structures are indexed by host engine-id rather than
>> guc_id, we can usefully convert some for_each_engine() loops to use
>> for_each_engine_id() and avoid multiple dereferences of engine->id.
>>
>> Also a few related tweaks to cache structure members locally wherever
>> they're used more than once or twice, hopefully eliminating memory
>> references.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Dave Gordon <david.s.gordon at intel.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c | 17 +++++++++--------
>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_guc_submission.c | 22 +++++++++++++---------
>> 2 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
>> index 793b1d9..2106766 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
>> @@ -2535,6 +2535,7 @@ static void i915_guc_client_info(struct seq_file
>> *m,
>> struct i915_guc_client *client)
>> {
>> struct intel_engine_cs *engine;
>> + enum intel_engine_id id;
>> uint64_t tot = 0;
>>
>> seq_printf(m, "\tPriority %d, GuC ctx index: %u, PD offset 0x%x\n",
>> @@ -2549,11 +2550,11 @@ static void i915_guc_client_info(struct
>> seq_file *m,
>> seq_printf(m, "\tFailed doorbell: %u\n", client->b_fail);
>> seq_printf(m, "\tLast submission result: %d\n", client->retcode);
>>
>> - for_each_engine(engine, dev_priv) {
>> + for_each_engine_id(engine, dev_priv, id) {
>> + u64 submissions = client->submissions[id];
>> + tot += submissions;
>> seq_printf(m, "\tSubmissions: %llu %s\n",
>> - client->submissions[engine->id],
>> - engine->name);
>> - tot += client->submissions[engine->id];
>> + submissions, engine->name);
>> }
>> seq_printf(m, "\tTotal: %llu\n", tot);
>> }
>> @@ -2598,11 +2599,11 @@ static int i915_guc_info(struct seq_file *m,
>> void *data)
>> seq_printf(m, "GuC last action error code: %d\n", guc.action_err);
>>
>> seq_printf(m, "\nGuC submissions:\n");
>> - for_each_engine(engine, dev_priv) {
>> + for_each_engine_id(engine, dev_priv, id) {
>> + u64 submissions = guc.submissions[id];
>> + total += submissions;
>> seq_printf(m, "\t%-24s: %10llu, last seqno 0x%08x\n",
>> - engine->name, guc.submissions[engine->id],
>> - guc.last_seqno[engine->id]);
>> - total += guc.submissions[engine->id];
>> + engine->name, submissions, guc.last_seqno[id]);
>> }
>> seq_printf(m, "\t%s: %llu\n", "Total", total);
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_guc_submission.c
>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_guc_submission.c
>> index 6756db0..ece3479 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_guc_submission.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_guc_submission.c
>> @@ -342,7 +342,8 @@ static void guc_init_ctx_desc(struct intel_guc *guc,
>>
>> for_each_engine_masked(engine, dev_priv, client->engines) {
>> struct intel_context *ce = &ctx->engine[engine->id];
>> - struct guc_execlist_context *lrc = &desc.lrc[engine->guc_id];
>> + uint32_t guc_engine_id = engine->guc_id;
>> + struct guc_execlist_context *lrc = &desc.lrc[guc_engine_id];
>> struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj;
>>
>> /* TODO: We have a design issue to be solved here. Only when we
>> @@ -361,7 +362,7 @@ static void guc_init_ctx_desc(struct intel_guc *guc,
>> gfx_addr = i915_gem_obj_ggtt_offset(ce->state);
>> lrc->ring_lcra = gfx_addr + LRC_STATE_PN * PAGE_SIZE;
>> lrc->context_id = (client->ctx_index << GUC_ELC_CTXID_OFFSET) |
>> - (engine->guc_id << GUC_ELC_ENGINE_OFFSET);
>> + (guc_engine_id << GUC_ELC_ENGINE_OFFSET);
>>
>> obj = ce->ringbuf->obj;
>> gfx_addr = i915_gem_obj_ggtt_offset(obj);
>> @@ -371,7 +372,7 @@ static void guc_init_ctx_desc(struct intel_guc *guc,
>> lrc->ring_next_free_location = gfx_addr;
>> lrc->ring_current_tail_pointer_value = 0;
>>
>> - desc.engines_used |= (1 << engine->guc_id);
>> + desc.engines_used |= (1 << guc_engine_id);
>> }
>>
>> DRM_DEBUG_DRIVER("Host engines 0x%x => GuC engines used 0x%x\n",
>> @@ -461,6 +462,7 @@ static void guc_add_workqueue_item(struct
>> i915_guc_client *gc,
>> /* wqi_len is in DWords, and does not include the one-word
>> header */
>> const size_t wqi_size = sizeof(struct guc_wq_item);
>> const u32 wqi_len = wqi_size/sizeof(u32) - 1;
>> + struct intel_engine_cs *engine = rq->engine;
>> struct guc_process_desc *desc;
>> struct guc_wq_item *wqi;
>> void *base;
>> @@ -502,12 +504,11 @@ static void guc_add_workqueue_item(struct
>> i915_guc_client *gc,
>> /* Now fill in the 4-word work queue item */
>> wqi->header = WQ_TYPE_INORDER |
>> (wqi_len << WQ_LEN_SHIFT) |
>> - (rq->engine->guc_id << WQ_TARGET_SHIFT) |
>> + (engine->guc_id << WQ_TARGET_SHIFT) |
>> WQ_NO_WCFLUSH_WAIT;
>>
>> /* The GuC wants only the low-order word of the context
>> descriptor */
>> - wqi->context_desc = (u32)intel_lr_context_descriptor(rq->ctx,
>> - rq->engine);
>> + wqi->context_desc = (u32)intel_lr_context_descriptor(rq->ctx,
>> engine);
>>
>> wqi->ring_tail = tail << WQ_RING_TAIL_SHIFT;
>> wqi->fence_id = rq->fence.seqno;
>> @@ -1035,11 +1036,14 @@ int i915_guc_submission_enable(struct
>> drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>> void i915_guc_submission_disable(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>> {
>> struct intel_guc *guc = &dev_priv->guc;
>> + struct i915_guc_client **gc_ptr;
>> struct intel_engine_cs *engine;
>> + enum intel_engine_id engine_id;
>>
>> - for_each_engine(engine, dev_priv) {
>> - guc_client_free(dev_priv, guc->exec_clients[engine->id]);
>> - guc->exec_clients[engine->id] = NULL;
>> + for_each_engine_id(engine, dev_priv, engine_id) {
>> + gc_ptr = &guc->exec_clients[engine_id];
>> + guc_client_free(dev_priv, *gc_ptr);
>> + *gc_ptr = NULL;
>> }
>> }
>>
>>
>
> Didn't spot a difference from v1 which I reviewed before. What is new in
> v2?
>
> Reviewed-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin at intel.com>
>
> Regards,
> Tvrtko
Nothing different in this patch; it's v2 of the set, not of each patch
within it. Notice in particular the presence of a cover letter (as it's
more than a single patch), as agreed at yesterday's Tech Forum.
But I only found R-B's from you for v1 3/5 and 4/5; we discussed 1/5 and
2/5 offline but AFAICT you didn't post an R-B for them?
.Dave.
More information about the Intel-gfx
mailing list