[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 08/11] drm/i915/execlists: Force preemption via reset on timeout
Jeff McGee
jeff.mcgee at intel.com
Tue Mar 27 15:40:36 UTC 2018
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 09:51:20AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>
> On 26/03/2018 12:50, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >Install a timer when trying to preempt on behalf of an important
> >context such that if the active context does not honour the preemption
> >request within the desired timeout, then we reset the GPU to allow the
> >important context to run.
>
> I suggest renaming patch title to "Implement optional preemption
> delay timeout", or "upper bound", or something, as long as it is not
> "force preemption". :)
>
> >(Open: should not the timer be started from receiving the high priority
> >request...)
>
> If you think receiving as in execbuf I think not - that would be
> something else and not preempt timeout.
>
> >Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>
> >---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c | 53 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.h | 8 +++++
> > 2 files changed, 61 insertions(+)
> >
> >diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c
> >index 50688fc889d9..6da816d23cb3 100644
> >--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c
> >+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c
> >@@ -533,6 +533,47 @@ static void inject_preempt_context(struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
> > execlists_clear_active(execlists, EXECLISTS_ACTIVE_HWACK);
> > execlists_set_active(execlists, EXECLISTS_ACTIVE_PREEMPT);
> >+
> >+ /* Set a timer to force preemption vs hostile userspace */
> >+ if (execlists->queue_preempt_timeout) {
> >+ GEM_TRACE("%s timeout=%uns\n",
>
> preempt-timeout ?
>
> >+ engine->name, execlists->queue_preempt_timeout);
> >+ hrtimer_start(&execlists->preempt_timer,
> >+ ktime_set(0, execlists->queue_preempt_timeout),
> >+ HRTIMER_MODE_REL);
> >+ }
> >+}
> >+
> >+static enum hrtimer_restart preempt_timeout(struct hrtimer *hrtimer)
> >+{
> >+ struct intel_engine_execlists *execlists =
> >+ container_of(hrtimer, typeof(*execlists), preempt_timer);
> >+
> >+ GEM_TRACE("%s\n",
> >+ container_of(execlists,
> >+ struct intel_engine_cs,
> >+ execlists)->name);
> >+
> >+ queue_work(system_highpri_wq, &execlists->preempt_reset);
>
> I suppose indirection from hrtimer to worker is for better than
> jiffie timeout granularity? But then queue_work might introduce some
> delay to defeat that.
>
> I am wondering if simply schedule_delayed_work directly wouldn't be
> good enough. I suppose it is a question for the product group. But
> it is also implementation detail.
>
I started with schedule_delayed_work in my implementation hoping for
at least consistent msec accuracy, but it was all over the place.
We need msec granularity for the automotive use cases.
-Jeff
> >+ return HRTIMER_NORESTART;
> >+}
> >+
> >+static void preempt_reset(struct work_struct *work)
> >+{
> >+ struct intel_engine_cs *engine =
> >+ container_of(work, typeof(*engine), execlists.preempt_reset);
> >+
> >+ GEM_TRACE("%s\n", engine->name);
> >+
> >+ tasklet_disable(&engine->execlists.tasklet);
> >+
> >+ engine->execlists.tasklet.func(engine->execlists.tasklet.data);
>
> Comment on why calling the tasklet directly.
>
> >+
> >+ if (execlists_is_active(&engine->execlists, EXECLISTS_ACTIVE_PREEMPT))
> >+ i915_handle_error(engine->i915, BIT(engine->id), 0,
> >+ "preemption timed out on %s", engine->name);
>
> Can this race with the normal reset and we end up wit
> i915_handle_error twice simultaneously?
>
> >+
> >+ tasklet_enable(&engine->execlists.tasklet);
> > }
> > static void complete_preempt_context(struct intel_engine_execlists *execlists)
> >@@ -542,6 +583,10 @@ static void complete_preempt_context(struct intel_engine_execlists *execlists)
> > execlists_cancel_port_requests(execlists);
> > execlists_unwind_incomplete_requests(execlists);
> >+ /* If the timer already fired, complete the reset */
> >+ if (hrtimer_try_to_cancel(&execlists->preempt_timer) < 0)
> >+ return;
>
> What about timer which had already fired and queued the worker?
> hrtimer_try_to_cancel will return zero for that case I think.
>
> >+
> > execlists_clear_active(execlists, EXECLISTS_ACTIVE_PREEMPT);
> > }
> >@@ -708,6 +753,7 @@ static void execlists_dequeue(struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
> > kmem_cache_free(engine->i915->priorities, p);
> > }
> > done:
> >+ execlists->queue_preempt_timeout = 0; /* preemption point passed */
> > execlists->queue_priority = rb ? to_priolist(rb)->priority : INT_MIN;
> > execlists->first = rb;
> > if (submit)
> >@@ -864,6 +910,7 @@ static void execlists_cancel_requests(struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
> > /* Remaining _unready_ requests will be nop'ed when submitted */
> >+ execlists->queue_preempt_timeout = 0;
> > execlists->queue_priority = INT_MIN;
> > execlists->queue = RB_ROOT;
> > execlists->first = NULL;
> >@@ -1080,6 +1127,7 @@ static void queue_request(struct intel_engine_cs *engine,
> > static void __submit_queue(struct intel_engine_cs *engine, int prio)
> > {
> > engine->execlists.queue_priority = prio;
> >+ engine->execlists.queue_preempt_timeout = 0;
> > tasklet_hi_schedule(&engine->execlists.tasklet);
> > }
> >@@ -2270,6 +2318,11 @@ logical_ring_setup(struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
> > tasklet_init(&engine->execlists.tasklet,
> > execlists_submission_tasklet, (unsigned long)engine);
> >+ INIT_WORK(&engine->execlists.preempt_reset, preempt_reset);
> >+ hrtimer_init(&engine->execlists.preempt_timer,
> >+ CLOCK_MONOTONIC, HRTIMER_MODE_REL);
> >+ engine->execlists.preempt_timer.function = preempt_timeout;
> >+
> > logical_ring_default_vfuncs(engine);
> > logical_ring_default_irqs(engine);
> > }
> >diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.h
> >index 4c71dcdc722b..7166f47c8489 100644
> >--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.h
> >+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.h
> >@@ -284,6 +284,11 @@ struct intel_engine_execlists {
> > */
> > int queue_priority;
> >+ /**
> >+ * @queue_preempt_timeout: Timeout in ns before forcing preemption.
> >+ */
> >+ unsigned int queue_preempt_timeout;
> >+
> > /**
> > * @queue: queue of requests, in priority lists
> > */
> >@@ -313,6 +318,9 @@ struct intel_engine_execlists {
> > * @preempt_complete_status: expected CSB upon completing preemption
> > */
> > u32 preempt_complete_status;
> >+
> >+ struct hrtimer preempt_timer;
> >+ struct work_struct preempt_reset;
> > };
> > #define INTEL_ENGINE_CS_MAX_NAME 8
> >
>
> Regards,
>
> Tvrtko
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
More information about the Intel-gfx
mailing list