[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/5] drm/i915/execlists: Refactor -EIO markup of hung requests

[Tvrtko Ursulin]

On 21/09/2019 10:55, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Pull setting -EIO on the hung requests into its own utility function.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>
> ---
>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_lrc.c | 32 +++++++++++++++--------------
>   1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_lrc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_lrc.c
> index 1a2b71157f08..53e823d36b28 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_lrc.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_lrc.c
> @@ -234,6 +234,13 @@ static void execlists_init_reg_state(u32 *reg_state,
>   				     struct intel_engine_cs *engine,
>   				     struct intel_ring *ring);
>   
> +static void mark_eio(struct i915_request *rq)
> +{
> +	if (!i915_request_signaled(rq))
> +		dma_fence_set_error(&rq->fence, -EIO);
> +	i915_request_mark_complete(rq);
> +}
> +
>   static inline u32 intel_hws_preempt_address(struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
>   {
>   	return (i915_ggtt_offset(engine->status_page.vma) +
> @@ -2501,12 +2508,8 @@ static void execlists_cancel_requests(struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
>   	__execlists_reset(engine, true);
>   
>   	/* Mark all executing requests as skipped. */
> -	list_for_each_entry(rq, &engine->active.requests, sched.link) {
> -		if (!i915_request_signaled(rq))
> -			dma_fence_set_error(&rq->fence, -EIO);
> -
> -		i915_request_mark_complete(rq);
> -	}
> +	list_for_each_entry(rq, &engine->active.requests, sched.link)
> +		mark_eio(rq);
>   
>   	/* Flush the queued requests to the timeline list (for retiring). */
>   	while ((rb = rb_first_cached(&execlists->queue))) {
> @@ -2514,10 +2517,8 @@ static void execlists_cancel_requests(struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
>   		int i;
>   
>   		priolist_for_each_request_consume(rq, rn, p, i) {
> -			list_del_init(&rq->sched.link);

list_del_init not needed any more? Should be mentioned in the commit 
message.

> +			mark_eio(rq);
>   			__i915_request_submit(rq);
> -			dma_fence_set_error(&rq->fence, -EIO);
> -			i915_request_mark_complete(rq);

I am also curious about Mika's question - if the change in ordering of 
submit vs mark_complete is important it should be mentioned in the commit.

>   		}
>   
>   		rb_erase_cached(&p->node, &execlists->queue);
> @@ -2533,13 +2534,14 @@ static void execlists_cancel_requests(struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
>   		RB_CLEAR_NODE(rb);
>   
>   		spin_lock(&ve->base.active.lock);
> -		if (ve->request) {
> -			ve->request->engine = engine;
> -			__i915_request_submit(ve->request);
> -			dma_fence_set_error(&ve->request->fence, -EIO);
> -			i915_request_mark_complete(ve->request);
> +		rq = fetch_and_zero(&ve->request);
> +		if (rq) {
> +			mark_eio(rq);
> +
> +			rq->engine = engine;
> +			__i915_request_submit(rq);
> +
>   			ve->base.execlists.queue_priority_hint = INT_MIN;
> -			ve->request = NULL;
>   		}
>   		spin_unlock(&ve->base.active.lock);
>   	}
> 

Regards,

Tvrtko