[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2 0/7] Make GEN macros more similar

Mon Nov 26 18:46:57 UTC 2018

On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 08:54:30AM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> 
> 
> On 21/11/2018 22:19, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 02:20:55PM -0800, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 11:23:46AM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > On 08/11/2018 00:57, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Nov 07, 2018 at 10:05:19AM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On 06/11/2018 21:51, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> > > > > > > This is the second version of the series trying to make GEN checks
> > > > > > > more similar. These or roughly the changes from v1:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > - We don't have a single macro receiving 2 or 3 parameters. Now there
> > > > > > >      is GT_GEN_RANGE(), and GT_GEN(). The firs is the conversion from
> > > > > > >      IS_GEN() while the second is the conversion from IS_GEN<N>()
> > > > > > > - Bring GEN_FOREVER back to be used with above macros
> > > > > > > - Patch converting <, <=, ==, >, >=  checks using INTEL_GEN() to
> > > > > > >      use the macros above was added
> > > > > > > - INTEL_GEN() is removed to avoid it being used when we should prefer
> > > > > > >      the new macros
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > The idea of the names is to pave the way for checks of the display version,
> > > > > > > which would be named DISPLAY_GEN(), DISPLAY_GEN_RANGE().
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > In the commit messages we have the scripts to regenerate the patch to make
> > > > > > > it easier to apply after the discussions and also to be able to convert
> > > > > > > inflight patches.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Sorry in advance for the noise this causes in the codebase, but hopefully
> > > > > > > it is for the greater good.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Lucas De Marchi (6):
> > > > > > >      Revert "drm/i915: Kill GEN_FOREVER"
> > > > > > >      drm/i915: replace IS_GEN<N> with GT_GEN(..., N)
> > > > > > >      drm/i915: rename IS_GEN9_* to GT_GEN9_*
> > > > > > >      drm/i915: replace gen checks using operators by GT_GEN/GT_GEN_RANGE
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I have reservations about this patch, where I think forcing only one flavour
> > > > > > maybe is not the best thing. Because for plain if-ladder cases it feels more
> > > > > > readable to stick with the current scheme of arithmetic comparisons. And it
> > > > > > is more efficient in code as well.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Range checks are on the other hand useful either when combined in the same
> > > > > > conditional as some other bitmask based test, or when both ends of the
> > > > > > comparison edge are bound.
> > > > > 
> > > > > So are you against changing the == to use the macros, changing the >=, >, <, <=,
> > > > > or all of them?
> > > > 
> > > > Definitely not all of them. Just plain if ladders I think are definitely
> > > > more readable in source and result in better code in the normal fashion of:
> > > > 
> > > >     if (gen >= 11)
> > > >     else if (gen >= 9)
> > > >     else if (gen >= 7)
> > > >     ... etc ...
> > > > 
> > > > Where I think it makes sense is when either both edges are bound, like:
> > > > 
> > > >    if (gen < 11 || gen >= 8)
> > > >    if (gen >= 10 || gen == 8)
> > > 
> > > ok, I will take a look before respinning this.
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > But not sure how many of those there are.
> > > > 
> > > > What definitely exists in large-ish numbers are:
> > 
> > specially on display side...
> > 
> > > > 
> > > >     if (gen >= 11 ||  IS_PLATFORM)
> > 
> > My goal is exactly to organize the gen numbers in a way that
> > we minimize this mix as much as possible.
> > 
> > > > 
> > > > At some point I had a prototype which puts the gen and platform masks into a
> > > > bag of bits and then, depending on bits locality, this too can be compressed
> > > > to a single bitmask test. However I felt that was going too far, and the
> > > > issue is achieving interesting bits locality for it too work. But I digress.
> > > > 
> > > > > Looking at the changes to ==, they seem very reasonable and in a few cases it allowed
> > > > > the next patch to merge them in a GT_GEN_RANGE() -- yes the patch ordering was on
> > > > > purpose to allow that.
> > > > 
> > > > Yep those are the good ones.
> > > > 
> > > > > The others are indeed debatable. However IMO for the cases it makes sense,
> > > > > there's always the fallback
> > > > > 
> > > > > if (dev_priv->info.gen == 10)
> > > > >       ...
> > > > > else if (dev_priv->info.gen == 11)
> > > > >       ...
> > > > > else if (dev_priv->info.gen < 5)
> > > > >       ...
> > > > > 
> > > > > We can go on a case by case manner in this patch rather than the mass conversion
> > > > > for these.
> > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > >      drm/i915: merge gen checks to use range
> > > > > > >      drm/i915: remove INTEL_GEN macro
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I have reservations about this as as well, especially considering the
> > > > > > previous paragraph. But even on it's own I am not sure we want to go back to
> > > > > > more verbose.
> > > > > 
> > > > > see above. IMO it's not actually so verbose as one would think.
> > > > > 
> > > > >       if (INTEL_GEN(dev_priv) == 11)
> > > > >       vs
> > > > >       if (dev_priv->info.gen == 11)
> > > > 
> > > > I think it should be:
> > > > 
> > > >         if (INTEL_INFO(dev_priv)->gen == 11)
> > > > 
> > > > Which is a tiny bit longer..
> > > 
> > > If it's longer, why bother? We could just as well do for the if ladders:
> > > 
> > > gen = dev_priv->info.gen;
> > > or
> > > gen = INTEL_INFO(dev_priv)->gen
> > > 
> > > In your other series you would be moving gen to a runtime info, so this
> > > would cause the same amount of churn (although I disagree with moving gen to a runtime
> > > info just because of the mock struct).
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > The "verbose" version is actually one character less and one lookup less
> > > > > to what the macro is doing underneath. Of course that means a lot of churn
> > > > > to the codebase when/if we change where the gen number is located, but that
> > > > > number is at the same place since its introduction in 2010
> > > > > (commit c96c3a8cb7fadcb33d9a5ebe35fcee8b7d0a7946)
> > > > 
> > > > I am pretty sure we went through patches to a) move towards INTEL_INFO and
> > > > b) replace INTEL_INFO(dev_priv)->gen with INTEL_GEN. So I don't see an
> > > > advantage of reverting that, just so that we can lose the IS_ prefix below.
> > > > 
> > > > > > Perhaps in the new scheme of things it should be renamed to INTEL_GT_GEN? I
> > > > > > know it doesn't fit nicely with the naming scheme of GT/DISPLAY_GEN.. so
> > > > > > maybe:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > GT_GEN -> IS_GT_GEN
> > > > > > GT_GEN_RANGE -> IS_GT_GEN_RANGE
> > > > > > INTEL_GEN -> GT_GEN (but churn!?)
> > > > > 
> > > > > I still think INTEL_GEN() is not bringing much clarity and forcing
> > > > > the other macros to have the IS_ prefix.
> > > > 
> > > > Is the IS_ prefix that bad?
> > 
> > I personally don't like it... but maybe it is just my bad english?!
> > 
> > 1. if gen 9
> > 2. if is gen 9
> > 3. if this is a gen 9 platform
> > 
> > I like more the option 1...
> > 
> > > > 
> > > > I agree my idea does not decrease the amount of churn, since it said to
> > > > replace INTEL_GEN with INTEL_GT_GEN. But in the light of the GT/DISPLAY
> > > > split, and if we agree to leave a lot of the arithmetic comparison in
> > > > (dialing down of "drm/i915: replace gen checks using operators by
> > > > GT_GEN/GT_GEN_RANGE"), then it feels going back to INTEL_INFO(dev_priv)->gen
> > > > throughout the code is undoing some work, just so you can remove the
> > > > INTEL_GEN macro instead of renaming it INTEL_GT_GEN.
> > > > 
> > > > Don't know, it's my opinion at least and more people are welcome to chime in
> > > > with theirs.
> > > 
> > > Any others to chime in on this? Jani, Ville, Rodrigo?
> > 
> > I don't like mixed styles much. If we don't kill the macro we will continue
> > having mixed cases.
> > 
> > So I'm in favor of the approach of this series here.
> 
> Including the removal of INTEL_GEN macro? Or what do you propose for that
> one? Can't be called GT_GEN now since that has been used up...

Yes, including the removal of INTEL_GEN macro.

I don't like the mixed styles like using INTEL_GEN(d) > 7 in one place
and INTEL_GEN_RANGE(d, 7, FOREVER) in another place.

The meaning is the same so we should stick with one of the usages.

I see that there were many cases where having the info->gen number
directly is useful. But I'd prefer to use that on a direct fashion
rather than keeping this macro.

Because if we keep the macro developers will eventually end up
adding the mixed style back.

Using direct info->gen as Lucas already showed has almost same number
of chars than the macro, but requires more attention what is a good
thing.

> 
> Regards,
> 
> Tvrtko