[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 24/26] drm/i915: Update I915_GEM_BUSY IOCTL to understand composite fences
Matthew Brost
matthew.brost at intel.com
Tue Oct 12 18:31:44 UTC 2021
On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 08:53:25AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>
> On 04/10/2021 23:06, Matthew Brost wrote:
> > Parallel submission create composite fences (dma_fence_array) for excl /
> > shared slots in objects. The I915_GEM_BUSY IOCTL checks these slots to
> > determine the busyness of the object. Prior to patch it only check if
> > the fence in the slot was a i915_request. Update the check to understand
> > composite fences and correctly report the busyness.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost at intel.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_busy.c | 60 +++++++++++++++----
> > .../gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_execbuffer.c | 5 +-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.h | 6 ++
> > 3 files changed, 58 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_busy.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_busy.c
> > index 6234e17259c1..b89d173c62eb 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_busy.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_busy.c
> > @@ -4,6 +4,8 @@
> > * Copyright © 2014-2016 Intel Corporation
> > */
> > +#include <linux/dma-fence-array.h>
> > +
> > #include "gt/intel_engine.h"
> > #include "i915_gem_ioctls.h"
> > @@ -36,7 +38,7 @@ static __always_inline u32 __busy_write_id(u16 id)
> > }
> > static __always_inline unsigned int
> > -__busy_set_if_active(const struct dma_fence *fence, u32 (*flag)(u16 id))
> > +__busy_set_if_active(struct dma_fence *fence, u32 (*flag)(u16 id))
> > {
> > const struct i915_request *rq;
> > @@ -46,29 +48,63 @@ __busy_set_if_active(const struct dma_fence *fence, u32 (*flag)(u16 id))
> > * to eventually flush us, but to minimise latency just ask the
> > * hardware.
> > *
> > - * Note we only report on the status of native fences.
> > + * Note we only report on the status of native fences and we currently
> > + * have two native fences:
> > + *
> > + * 1. A composite fence (dma_fence_array) constructed of i915 requests
> > + * created during a parallel submission. In this case we deconstruct the
> > + * composite fence into individual i915 requests and check the status of
> > + * each request.
> > + *
> > + * 2. A single i915 request.
> > */
> > - if (!dma_fence_is_i915(fence))
> > + if (dma_fence_is_array(fence)) {
> > + struct dma_fence_array *array = to_dma_fence_array(fence);
> > + struct dma_fence **child = array->fences;
> > + unsigned int nchild = array->num_fences;
> > +
> > + do {
> > + struct dma_fence *current_fence = *child++;
> > +
> > + /* Not an i915 fence, can't be busy per above */
> > + if (!dma_fence_is_i915(current_fence) ||
> > + !test_bit(I915_FENCE_FLAG_COMPOSITE,
> > + ¤t_fence->flags)) {
> > + return 0;
> > + }
> > +
> > + rq = to_request(current_fence);
> > + if (!i915_request_completed(rq)) {
> > + BUILD_BUG_ON(!typecheck(u16,
> > + rq->engine->uabi_class));
> > + return flag(rq->engine->uabi_class);
> > + }
> > + } while (--nchild);
>
> Do you even need to introduce I915_FENCE_FLAG_COMPOSITE? If parallel submit
> is the only possible creator of array fences then possibly not. Probably
> even would result in less code which even keeps working in a hypothetical
> future. Otherwise you could add a debug bug on if array fence contains a
> fence without I915_FENCE_FLAG_COMPOSITE set.
>
Certainly other drivers can create a dma fence array and in theory could
include a i915_request in that array. Adding this flag makes it clear
that this fence was created by i915 for parallel submission and future
proofs this code.
> Secondly, I'd also run the whole loop and not return on first busy or
> incompatible for simplicity.
>
I disagree. Short circuiting when a condition is found is pretty
standard and not hard to understand.
> And finally, with all above in place, I think you could have common function
> for the below (checking one fence) and call that both for a single fence and
> from an array loop above for less duplication. (Even duplicated BUILD_BUG_ON
> which makes no sense!)
>
Yea duplicating the BUILD_BUG_ON doesn't make a ton of sense. Will
remove.
Disagree on the helper, the code paths are different enough to just open
code this.
Matt
> End result would be a simpler patch like:
>
> __busy_set_if_active_one(...)
> {
> .. existing __busy_set_if_active ..
> }
>
> __busy_set_if_active(..)
> {
> ...
> if (dma_fence_is_array(fence)) {
> ...
> for (i = 0; i < array->num_fences; i++)
> flags |= __busy_set_if_active_one(...);
> } else {
> flags = __busy_set_if_active_one(...);
> }
>
> Regards,
>
> Tvrtko
>
> > +
> > + /* All requests in array complete, not busy */
> > return 0;
> > + } else {
> > + if (!dma_fence_is_i915(fence))
> > + return 0;
> > - /* opencode to_request() in order to avoid const warnings */
> > - rq = container_of(fence, const struct i915_request, fence);
> > - if (i915_request_completed(rq))
> > - return 0;
> > + rq = to_request(fence);
> > + if (i915_request_completed(rq))
> > + return 0;
> > - /* Beware type-expansion follies! */
> > - BUILD_BUG_ON(!typecheck(u16, rq->engine->uabi_class));
> > - return flag(rq->engine->uabi_class);
> > + /* Beware type-expansion follies! */
> > + BUILD_BUG_ON(!typecheck(u16, rq->engine->uabi_class));
> > + return flag(rq->engine->uabi_class);
> > + }
> > }
> > static __always_inline unsigned int
> > -busy_check_reader(const struct dma_fence *fence)
> > +busy_check_reader(struct dma_fence *fence)
> > {
> > return __busy_set_if_active(fence, __busy_read_flag);
> > }
> > static __always_inline unsigned int
> > -busy_check_writer(const struct dma_fence *fence)
> > +busy_check_writer(struct dma_fence *fence)
> > {
> > if (!fence)
> > return 0;
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_execbuffer.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_execbuffer.c
> > index 5c7fb6f68bbb..16276f406fd6 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_execbuffer.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_execbuffer.c
> > @@ -2988,8 +2988,11 @@ eb_composite_fence_create(struct i915_execbuffer *eb, int out_fence_fd)
> > if (!fences)
> > return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> > - for_each_batch_create_order(eb, i)
> > + for_each_batch_create_order(eb, i) {
> > fences[i] = &eb->requests[i]->fence;
> > + __set_bit(I915_FENCE_FLAG_COMPOSITE,
> > + &eb->requests[i]->fence.flags);
> > + }
> > fence_array = dma_fence_array_create(eb->num_batches,
> > fences,
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.h
> > index 24db8459376b..dc359242d1ae 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.h
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.h
> > @@ -156,6 +156,12 @@ enum {
> > * submission / relationship encoutered an error.
> > */
> > I915_FENCE_FLAG_SKIP_PARALLEL,
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * I915_FENCE_FLAG_COMPOSITE - Indicates fence is part of a composite
> > + * fence (dma_fence_array) and i915 generated for parallel submission.
> > + */
> > + I915_FENCE_FLAG_COMPOSITE,
> > };
> > /**
> >
More information about the Intel-gfx
mailing list