[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 05/41] drm/i915: Restructure priority inheritance

[Tvrtko Ursulin]

On 26/01/2021 11:55, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2021-01-26 11:40:24)
>>
>> On 26/01/2021 11:30, Chris Wilson wrote:
>>> Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2021-01-26 11:12:53)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 25/01/2021 14:01, Chris Wilson wrote:
>>>>> +static void ipi_schedule(struct work_struct *wrk)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +     struct i915_sched_ipi *ipi = container_of(wrk, typeof(*ipi), work);
>>>>> +     struct i915_request *rq = xchg(&ipi->list, NULL);
>>>>> +
>>>>> +     do {
>>>>> +             struct i915_request *rn = xchg(&rq->sched.ipi_link, NULL);
>>>>> +             int prio;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +             prio = ipi_get_prio(rq);
>>>>> +
>>>>> +             /*
>>>>> +              * For cross-engine scheduling to work we rely on one of two
>>>>> +              * things:
>>>>> +              *
>>>>> +              * a) The requests are using dma-fence fences and so will not
>>>>> +              * be scheduled until the previous engine is completed, and
>>>>> +              * so we cannot cross back onto the original engine and end up
>>>>> +              * queuing an earlier request after the first (due to the
>>>>> +              * interrupted DFS).
>>>>> +              *
>>>>> +              * b) The requests are using semaphores and so may be already
>>>>> +              * be in flight, in which case if we cross back onto the same
>>>>> +              * engine, we will already have put the interrupted DFS into
>>>>> +              * the priolist, and the continuation will now be queued
>>>>> +              * afterwards [out-of-order]. However, since we are using
>>>>> +              * semaphores in this case, we also perform yield on semaphore
>>>>> +              * waits and so will reorder the requests back into the correct
>>>>> +              * sequence. This occurrence (of promoting a request chain
>>>>> +              * that crosses the engines using semaphores back unto itself)
>>>>> +              * should be unlikely enough that it probably does not matter...
>>>>> +              */
>>>>> +             local_bh_disable();
>>>>> +             i915_request_set_priority(rq, prio);
>>>>> +             local_bh_enable();
>>>>
>>>> Is it that important and wouldn't the priority order restore eventually
>>>> due timeslicing?
>>>
>>> There would be a window in which we executed userspace code
>>> out-of-order. That's enough to scare me! However, for our PI dependency
>>> chains it should not matter as the only time we do submit out-of-order,
>>> we are stuck on _our_ semaphore that cannot be resolved until the
>>> requests are back in-order.
>>
>> Out of order how? Within a single timeline?! I though only with
>> incomplete view of priority inheritance, which in my mind could only
>> cause deadlocks (if no timeslicing). But really really out of order?
> 
> Fences between timelines. Let's say we have 3 requests, A,B,C all with
> sequential fencing (C depends on B depends on A), but B is on a
> different engine to (A, C) and we are using semaphores to submit early.
> If we bump the priority of C, we see it crosses the engine to B, and send
> an ipi_priority, but set C to be higher priority than A. So we now
> schedule C before A!

Yeah so different timelines, I think that's not a huge problem to start 
with. Only if things were non-preemptable.

> However, since C depends on B which depends on A, C is stuck on its
> semaphore from B, and B is waiting for A. As soon as A is set to the
> same priority as C (after a couple of ipi_priority()), we rerun the
> scheduler see that C has a semaphore-yield (or eventually timeslice
> expired) and so run A before C, and order is restored.
> 
>>> I've tried to trick this into causing problems with the
>>> i915_selftest/igt_schedule_cycle and gem_exec_schedule/noreorder.
>>> Fortunately for my sanity, neither test have caught any problems.
>>>
>>> This is the handwaving part of removing the global lock.
>>>
>>>>> +     /*
>>>>> +      * If we are setting the priority before being submitted, see if we
>>>>> +      * can quickly adjust our own priority in-situ and avoid taking
>>>>> +      * the contended engine->active.lock. If we need priority inheritance,
>>>>> +      * take the slow route.
>>>>> +      */
>>>>> +     if (rq_prio(rq) == I915_PRIORITY_INVALID) {
>>>>> +             struct i915_dependency *p;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +             rcu_read_lock();
>>>>> +             for_each_signaler(p, rq) {
>>>>> +                     struct i915_request *s =
>>>>> +                             container_of(p->signaler, typeof(*s), sched);
>>>>> +
>>>>> +                     if (rq_prio(s) >= prio)
>>>>> +                             continue;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +                     if (__i915_request_is_complete(s))
>>>>> +                             continue;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +                     break;
>>>>> +             }
>>>>> +             rcu_read_unlock();
>>>>
>>>> Exit this loop with a first lower priority incomplete signaler. What
>>>> does the block below then do? Feels like it needs a comment.
>>>
>>> I thought I had sufficiently explained that in the comment above.
>>>
>>> /* Update priority in place if no PI required */
>>>>> +             if (&p->signal_link == &rq->sched.signalers_list &&
>>>>> +                 cmpxchg(&rq->sched.attr.priority,
>>>>> +                         I915_PRIORITY_INVALID,
>>>>> +                         prio) == I915_PRIORITY_INVALID)
>>>>> +                     return;
>>>
>>> It could do a few more tricks to change the priority in-place a second
>>> time, but I did not think that would be frequent enough to matter.
>>> Whereas we always adjust the priority from INVALID once before
>>> submission, and avoiding taking the lock then does make a difference to
>>> the profiles.
>>
>> To start with, if p is NULL or un-initialized (can be, no?) then
>> relationship of &p->signal_link to &rq->sched.signalers_list escapes me.
> 
> p is constrained to be a member of the signalers_list or its head.

Is it defined list_for_each_entry exits with pos set? It is in 
implementation but I don't know why it would have to be. Could you 
change this to some form of list_empty or a descriptively named helper 
for clarity?

Regards,

Tvrtko