[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 5/6] drm/i915: Expose RPCS (SSEU) configuration to userspace
Tvrtko Ursulin
tvrtko.ursulin at linux.intel.com
Mon Sep 17 09:21:51 UTC 2018
On 14/09/2018 17:28, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2018-09-14 17:09:31)
>> +static int
>> +gen8_modify_rpcs_gpu(struct intel_context *ce,
>> + struct intel_engine_cs *engine,
>> + struct intel_sseu sseu)
>> +{
>> + struct drm_i915_private *i915 = engine->i915;
>> + struct i915_request *rq, *prev;
>> + int ret;
>> +
>> + GEM_BUG_ON(!ce->pin_count);
>> +
>> + lockdep_assert_held(&i915->drm.struct_mutex);
>> +
>> + /* Submitting requests etc needs the hw awake. */
>> + intel_runtime_pm_get(i915);
>> +
>> + rq = i915_request_alloc(engine, i915->kernel_context);
>> + if (IS_ERR(rq)) {
>> + ret = PTR_ERR(rq);
>> + goto out_put;
>> + }
>> +
>> + ret = gen8_emit_rpcs_config(rq, ce, sseu);
>> + if (ret)
>> + goto out_add;
>> +
>> + /* Queue this switch after all other activity by this context. */
>> + prev = i915_gem_active_raw(&ce->ring->timeline->last_request,
>> + &i915->drm.struct_mutex);
>> + if (prev && !i915_request_completed(prev))
>> + i915_sw_fence_await_sw_fence_gfp(&rq->submit,
>> + &prev->submit,
>> + I915_FENCE_GFP);
>
> I guess we really should be respecting the potential error here.
> We should do the await before the emit, and out_add on err < 0.
Yep, completely missed it can return error even though GFP_KERNEL should
have been a clue enough.
>> +
>> + /* Order all following requests to be after. */
>> + i915_timeline_set_barrier(ce->ring->timeline, rq);
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * Guarantee context image and the timeline remains pinned until the
>> + * modifying request is retired by setting the ce activity tracker.
>> + *
>> + * But we only need to take one pin on the account of it. Or in other
>> + * words transfer the pinned ce object to tracked active request.
>> + */
>> + if (!i915_gem_active_isset(&ce->active))
>> + __intel_context_pin(ce);
>> + i915_gem_active_set(&ce->active, rq);
>> +
>> +out_add:
>> + i915_request_add(rq);
>> +out_put:
>> + intel_runtime_pm_put(i915);
>> +
>> + return ret;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int
>> +i915_gem_context_reconfigure_sseu(struct i915_gem_context *ctx,
>> + struct intel_engine_cs *engine,
>> + struct intel_sseu sseu)
>> +{
>> + struct intel_context *ce = to_intel_context(ctx, engine);
>> + int ret;
>> +
>> + GEM_BUG_ON(INTEL_GEN(ctx->i915) < 8);
>> + GEM_BUG_ON(engine->id != RCS);
>> +
>> + ret = mutex_lock_interruptible(&ctx->i915->drm.struct_mutex);
>> + if (ret)
>> + return ret;
>> +
>> + /* Nothing to do if unmodified. */
>> + if (!memcmp(&ce->sseu, &sseu, sizeof(sseu)))
>> + goto out;
>
> /* If oa is active, it has already overridden the per-context setting */
> if (oa->active)
> goto set;
I don't like sprinkling knowledge of OA to more places than is
unavoidable. As such I prefer to centralize it to gen8_make_rpcs. Only
downside to not do it is an useless re-configuration request, but I
don't think we should care to optimize for the OA enabled case. If
anything it could make the overall system perform better when analysed
than when not. :)
Regards,
Tvrtko
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * If context is not idle we have to submit an ordered request to modify
>> + * its context image via the kernel context. Pristine and idle contexts
>> + * will be configured on pinning.
>> + */
>> + if (ce->pin_count)
>> + ret = gen8_modify_rpcs_gpu(ce, engine, sseu);
>> +
>> + if (!ret)
>
> set:
>
>> + ce->sseu = sseu;
>> +
>> +out:
>> + mutex_unlock(&ctx->i915->drm.struct_mutex);
>> +
>> + return ret;
> _______________________________________________
> 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