[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2 2/6] drm/i915/guc: Submit GuC workitems containing coalesced requests
Daniele Ceraolo Spurio
daniele.ceraolospurio at intel.com
Fri May 19 18:08:05 UTC 2017
On 19/05/17 06:23, Michał Winiarski wrote:
> To create an upper bound on number of GuC workitems, we need to change
> the way that requests are being submitted. Rather than submitting each
> request as an individual workitem, we can do coalescing in a similar way
> we're handlig execlist submission ports. We also need to stop pretending
> that we're doing "lite-restore" in GuC submission (we would create a
> workitem each time we hit this condition).
>
> v2: Also coalesce when replaying on reset (Daniele)
>
> Cc: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>
> Cc: Daniele Ceraolo Spurio <daniele.ceraolospurio at intel.com>
> Cc: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko at intel.com>
> Cc: Oscar Mateo <oscar.mateo at intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Michał Winiarski <michal.winiarski at intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_guc_submission.c | 68 ++++++++++++++++--------------
> 1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_guc_submission.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_guc_submission.c
> index b3da056..a586998 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_guc_submission.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_guc_submission.c
> @@ -580,7 +580,7 @@ static int guc_ring_doorbell(struct i915_guc_client *client)
> }
>
> /**
> - * __i915_guc_submit() - Submit commands through GuC
> + * i915_guc_submit() - Submit commands through GuC
> * @rq: request associated with the commands
> *
> * The caller must have already called i915_guc_wq_reserve() above with
> @@ -594,7 +594,7 @@ static int guc_ring_doorbell(struct i915_guc_client *client)
> * The only error here arises if the doorbell hardware isn't functioning
> * as expected, which really shouln't happen.
> */
> -static void __i915_guc_submit(struct drm_i915_gem_request *rq)
> +static void i915_guc_submit(struct drm_i915_gem_request *rq)
> {
> struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = rq->i915;
> struct intel_engine_cs *engine = rq->engine;
> @@ -624,12 +624,6 @@ static void __i915_guc_submit(struct drm_i915_gem_request *rq)
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&client->wq_lock, flags);
> }
>
> -static void i915_guc_submit(struct drm_i915_gem_request *rq)
> -{
> - __i915_gem_request_submit(rq);
> - __i915_guc_submit(rq);
> -}
> -
> static void nested_enable_signaling(struct drm_i915_gem_request *rq)
> {
> /* If we use dma_fence_enable_sw_signaling() directly, lockdep
> @@ -665,12 +659,15 @@ static void port_assign(struct execlist_port *port,
> nested_enable_signaling(rq);
> }
>
> -static bool i915_guc_dequeue(struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
> +static void i915_guc_dequeue(struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
> {
> struct execlist_port *port = engine->execlist_port;
> - struct drm_i915_gem_request *last = port_request(port);
> - struct rb_node *rb;
> + struct drm_i915_gem_request *last = NULL;
> bool submit = false;
> + struct rb_node *rb;
> +
> + if (port_request(port))
> + port++;
>
> spin_lock_irq(&engine->timeline->lock);
> rb = engine->execlist_first;
> @@ -689,12 +686,16 @@ static bool i915_guc_dequeue(struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
>
> port_assign(port, last);
> port++;
> + if (submit) {
> + i915_guc_submit(last);
> + submit = false;
> + }
> }
>
> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&rq->priotree.link);
> rq->priotree.priority = INT_MAX;
>
> - i915_guc_submit(rq);
> + __i915_gem_request_submit(rq);
> trace_i915_gem_request_in(rq, port_index(port, engine));
> last = rq;
> submit = true;
> @@ -708,11 +709,11 @@ static bool i915_guc_dequeue(struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
> }
> done:
> engine->execlist_first = rb;
> - if (submit)
> + if (submit) {
> port_assign(port, last);
> + i915_guc_submit(last);
> + }
Since now we only call both port_assign and i915_guc_submit once per
port, can we move both usages in the loop, before the break, and remove
it from here? i.e.:
if (last && rq->ctx != last->ctx) {
if (submit) {
port_assign(port, last);
i915_guc_submit(last);
}
if (port != engine->execlist_port) {
__list_del_many(&p->requests,
&rq->priotree.link);
goto done;
}
port++;
}
Or do we have issues with the ordering of operations?
> spin_unlock_irq(&engine->timeline->lock);
> -
> - return submit;
> }
>
> static void i915_guc_irq_handler(unsigned long data)
> @@ -720,24 +721,20 @@ static void i915_guc_irq_handler(unsigned long data)
> struct intel_engine_cs *engine = (struct intel_engine_cs *)data;
> struct execlist_port *port = engine->execlist_port;
> struct drm_i915_gem_request *rq;
> - bool submit;
>
> - do {
> - rq = port_request(&port[0]);
> - while (rq && i915_gem_request_completed(rq)) {
> - trace_i915_gem_request_out(rq);
> - i915_gem_request_put(rq);
> + rq = port_request(&port[0]);
> + while (rq && i915_gem_request_completed(rq)) {
> + trace_i915_gem_request_out(rq);
> + i915_gem_request_put(rq);
>
> - port[0] = port[1];
> - memset(&port[1], 0, sizeof(port[1]));
> + port[0] = port[1];
> + memset(&port[1], 0, sizeof(port[1]));
>
> - rq = port_request(&port[0]);
> - }
> + rq = port_request(&port[0]);
> + }
>
> - submit = false;
> - if (!port_count(&port[1]))
> - submit = i915_guc_dequeue(engine);
> - } while (submit);
> + if (!port_isset(&port[1]))
> + i915_guc_dequeue(engine);
> }
>
> /*
> @@ -1255,6 +1252,8 @@ int i915_guc_submission_enable(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> for_each_engine(engine, dev_priv, id) {
> const int wqi_size = sizeof(struct guc_wq_item);
> struct drm_i915_gem_request *rq;
> + struct execlist_port *port = engine->execlist_port;
> + int n;
>
> /* The tasklet was initialised by execlists, and may be in
> * a state of flux (across a reset) and so we just want to
> @@ -1266,11 +1265,16 @@ int i915_guc_submission_enable(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
>
> /* Replay the current set of previously submitted requests */
> spin_lock_irq(&engine->timeline->lock);
> - list_for_each_entry(rq, &engine->timeline->requests, link) {
> + list_for_each_entry(rq, &engine->timeline->requests, link)
> guc_client_update_wq_rsvd(client, wqi_size);
Should we move the reservation to just above i915_guc_submit()? we use 1
wq item per port and not per request starting this patch. Code is going
away in the next patch anyway so I'm happy if you skip this change to
keep things simple.
Thanks,
Daniele
> - __i915_guc_submit(rq);
> - }
> spin_unlock_irq(&engine->timeline->lock);
> +
> + for (n = 0; n < ARRAY_SIZE(engine->execlist_port); n++) {
> + if (!port_isset(&port[n]))
> + break;
> +
> + i915_guc_submit(port_request(&port[n]));
> + }
> }
>
> return 0;
>
More information about the Intel-gfx
mailing list