[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 08/27] drm/i915: Add logical engine mapping
Matthew Brost
matthew.brost at intel.com
Tue Sep 14 18:04:38 UTC 2021
On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 09:34:08AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>
> On 13/09/2021 17:50, Matthew Brost wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 10:24:43AM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> > >
> > > On 10/09/2021 20:49, Matthew Brost wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 12:12:42PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On 20/08/2021 23:44, Matthew Brost wrote:
> > > > > > Add logical engine mapping. This is required for split-frame, as
> > > > > > workloads need to be placed on engines in a logically contiguous manner.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > v2:
> > > > > > (Daniel Vetter)
> > > > > > - Add kernel doc for new fields
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost at intel.com>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_cs.c | 60 ++++++++++++++++---
> > > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_types.h | 5 ++
> > > > > > .../drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c | 1 +
> > > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_ads.c | 2 +-
> > > > > > .../gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c | 21 +------
> > > > > > 5 files changed, 60 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_cs.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_cs.c
> > > > > > index 0d9105a31d84..4d790f9a65dd 100644
> > > > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_cs.c
> > > > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_cs.c
> > > > > > @@ -290,7 +290,8 @@ static void nop_irq_handler(struct intel_engine_cs *engine, u16 iir)
> > > > > > GEM_DEBUG_WARN_ON(iir);
> > > > > > }
> > > > > > -static int intel_engine_setup(struct intel_gt *gt, enum intel_engine_id id)
> > > > > > +static int intel_engine_setup(struct intel_gt *gt, enum intel_engine_id id,
> > > > > > + u8 logical_instance)
> > > > > > {
> > > > > > const struct engine_info *info = &intel_engines[id];
> > > > > > struct drm_i915_private *i915 = gt->i915;
> > > > > > @@ -334,6 +335,7 @@ static int intel_engine_setup(struct intel_gt *gt, enum intel_engine_id id)
> > > > > > engine->class = info->class;
> > > > > > engine->instance = info->instance;
> > > > > > + engine->logical_mask = BIT(logical_instance);
> > > > > > __sprint_engine_name(engine);
> > > > > > engine->props.heartbeat_interval_ms =
> > > > > > @@ -572,6 +574,37 @@ static intel_engine_mask_t init_engine_mask(struct intel_gt *gt)
> > > > > > return info->engine_mask;
> > > > > > }
> > > > > > +static void populate_logical_ids(struct intel_gt *gt, u8 *logical_ids,
> > > > > > + u8 class, const u8 *map, u8 num_instances)
> > > > > > +{
> > > > > > + int i, j;
> > > > > > + u8 current_logical_id = 0;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + for (j = 0; j < num_instances; ++j) {
> > > > > > + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(intel_engines); ++i) {
> > > > > > + if (!HAS_ENGINE(gt, i) ||
> > > > > > + intel_engines[i].class != class)
> > > > > > + continue;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + if (intel_engines[i].instance == map[j]) {
> > > > > > + logical_ids[intel_engines[i].instance] =
> > > > > > + current_logical_id++;
> > > > > > + break;
> > > > > > + }
> > > > > > + }
> > > > > > + }
> > > > > > +}
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +static void setup_logical_ids(struct intel_gt *gt, u8 *logical_ids, u8 class)
> > > > > > +{
> > > > > > + int i;
> > > > > > + u8 map[MAX_ENGINE_INSTANCE + 1];
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + for (i = 0; i < MAX_ENGINE_INSTANCE + 1; ++i)
> > > > > > + map[i] = i;
> > > > >
> > > > > What's the point of the map array since it is 1:1 with instance?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Future products do not have a 1 to 1 mapping and that mapping can change
> > > > based on fusing, e.g. XeHP SDV.
> > > >
> > > > Also technically ICL / TGL / ADL physical instance 2 maps to logical
> > > > instance 1.
> > >
> > > I don't follow the argument. All I can see is that "map[i] = i" always in
> > > the proposed code, which is then used to check "instance == map[instance]".
> > > So I'd suggest to remove this array from the code until there is a need for
> > > it.
> > >
> >
> > Ok, this logic is slightly confusing and makes more sense once we have
> > non-standard mappings. Yes, map is setup in a 1 to 1 mapping by default
> > with the value in map[i] being a physical instance. Populate_logical_ids
> > searches the map finding all physical instances present in the map
> > assigning each found instance a new logical id increasing by 1 each
> > time.
> >
> > e.g. If the map is setup 0-N and only physical instance 0 / 2 are
> > present they will get logical mapping 0 / 1 respectfully.
> >
> > This algorithm works for non-standard mappings too /w fused parts. e.g.
> > on XeHP SDV the map is: { 0, 2, 4, 6, 1, 3, 5, 7 } and if any of the
> > physical instances can't be found due to fusing the logical mapping is
> > still correct per the bspec.
> >
> > This array is absolutely needed for multi-lrc submission to work, even
> > on ICL / TGL / ADL as the GuC only supports logically contiguous engine
> > instances.
>
> No idea how can an array fixed at "map[i] = i" be absolutely needed when you
> can just write it like "i". Sometimes it is okay to lay some ground work for
You can't write "i", that is the point. The map is a search array saying
if entry is present assign + increase the logical id. That is how a map
of 0, 1, 2 with physical instancnes 0, 2 present result in a logical
mapping of 0, 1. This is the algorithm we use for all parts, albeit some
parts have different maps (e.g. XeHP SDV, PVC, etc...) compared to here
where we use the default map of sequential numbers.
> future platforms but in this case to me it's just obfuscation which should
> be added later, when it is required.
Same algorithm, see above. This should land is as it doesn't make sense
to hack a different algorithm only to replace it with the correct
algorithm later.
>
> > > > > > + populate_logical_ids(gt, logical_ids, class, map, ARRAY_SIZE(map));
> > > > > > +}
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > /**
> > > > > > * intel_engines_init_mmio() - allocate and prepare the Engine Command Streamers
> > > > > > * @gt: pointer to struct intel_gt
> > > > > > @@ -583,7 +616,8 @@ int intel_engines_init_mmio(struct intel_gt *gt)
> > > > > > struct drm_i915_private *i915 = gt->i915;
> > > > > > const unsigned int engine_mask = init_engine_mask(gt);
> > > > > > unsigned int mask = 0;
> > > > > > - unsigned int i;
> > > > > > + unsigned int i, class;
> > > > > > + u8 logical_ids[MAX_ENGINE_INSTANCE + 1];
> > > > > > int err;
> > > > > > drm_WARN_ON(&i915->drm, engine_mask == 0);
> > > > > > @@ -593,15 +627,23 @@ int intel_engines_init_mmio(struct intel_gt *gt)
> > > > > > if (i915_inject_probe_failure(i915))
> > > > > > return -ENODEV;
> > > > > > - for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(intel_engines); i++) {
> > > > > > - if (!HAS_ENGINE(gt, i))
> > > > > > - continue;
> > > > > > + for (class = 0; class < MAX_ENGINE_CLASS + 1; ++class) {
> > > > > > + setup_logical_ids(gt, logical_ids, class);
> > > > > > - err = intel_engine_setup(gt, i);
> > > > > > - if (err)
> > > > > > - goto cleanup;
> > > > > > + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(intel_engines); ++i) {
> > > > > > + u8 instance = intel_engines[i].instance;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + if (intel_engines[i].class != class ||
> > > > > > + !HAS_ENGINE(gt, i))
> > > > > > + continue;
> > > > > > - mask |= BIT(i);
> > > > > > + err = intel_engine_setup(gt, i,
> > > > > > + logical_ids[instance]);
> > > > > > + if (err)
> > > > > > + goto cleanup;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + mask |= BIT(i);
> > > > >
> > > > > I still this there is a less clunky way to set this up in less code and more
> > > > > readable at the same time. Like do it in two passes so you can iterate
> > > > > gt->engine_class[] array instead of having to implement a skip condition
> > > > > (both on class and HAS_ENGINE at two places) and also avoid walking the flat
> > > > > intel_engines array recursively.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Kinda a bikeshed arguing about a pretty simple loop structure, don't you
> > > > think? I personally like the way it laid out.
> > > >
> > > > Pseudo code for your suggestion?
> > >
> > > Leave the existing setup loop as is and add an additional "for engine class"
> > > walk after it. That way you can walk already setup gt->engine_class[] array
> > > so wouldn't need to skip wrong classes and have HAS_ENGINE checks when
> > > walking the flat intel_engines[] array several times. It also applies to the
> > > helper which counts logical instances per class.
> > >
> >
> > Ok, I think I see what you are getting at. Again IMO this is a total
> > bikeshed as this is 1 time setup step that we really should only care if
> > the loop works or not rather than it being optimized / looks a way a
> > certain person wants. I can change this if you really insist but again
> > IMO disucssing this is a total waste of energy.
>
> It should be such a no brainer to go with simpler and less invasive change
> that I honestly don't understand where is the big deal. Here is my pseudo
> code one more time and that will be the last from me on the topic.
>
> Today we have:
>
> for_each intel_engines: // intel_engines is a flat list of all engines
> intel_engine_setup()
>
> You propose to change it to:
>
> for_each engine_class:
> for 0..max_global_engine_instance:
> for_each intel_engines:
> skip engine not present
> skip class not matching
>
> count logical instance
>
> for_each intel_engines:
> skip engine not present
> skip wrong class
>
> intel_engine_setup()
>
>
> I propose:
>
> // Leave as is:
>
> for_each intel_engines:
> intel_engine_setup()
>
> // Add:
>
> for_each engine_class:
> logical = 0
> for_each gt->engine_class[class]:
> skip engine not present
>
> engine->logical_instance = logical++
>
>
> When code which actually needs a preturbed "map" arrives you add that in to
> this second loop.
>
See above, why introduce an algorithm that doesn't work for future parts
+ future patches are land imminently? It makes zero sense whatsoever.
With your proposal we would literally land code to just throw it away a
couple of months from now + break patches we intend to land soon. This
algorithm works and has no reason whatsoever to be optimal as it a one
time setup call. I really don't understand why we are still talking
about this paint color.
> > > > > > + }
> > > > > > }
> > > > > > /*
> > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_types.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_types.h
> > > > > > index ed91bcff20eb..fddf35546b58 100644
> > > > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_types.h
> > > > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_types.h
> > > > > > @@ -266,6 +266,11 @@ struct intel_engine_cs {
> > > > > > unsigned int guc_id;
> > > > > > intel_engine_mask_t mask;
> > > > > > + /**
> > > > > > + * @logical_mask: logical mask of engine, reported to user space via
> > > > > > + * query IOCTL and used to communicate with the GuC in logical space
> > > > > > + */
> > > > > > + intel_engine_mask_t logical_mask;
> > > > >
> > > > > You could prefix the new field with uabi_ to match the existing scheme and
> > > > > to signify to anyone who might be touching it in the future it should not be
> > > > > changed.
> > > >
> > > > This is kinda uabi, but also kinda isn't. We do report a logical
> > > > instance via IOCTL but it also really is tied the GuC backend as we only
> > > > can communicate with the GuC in logical space. IMO we should leave as
> > > > is.
> > >
> > > Perhaps it would be best to call the new field uabi_logical_instance so it's
> > > clear it is reported in the query directly and do the BIT() transformation
> > > in the GuC backend?
> > >
> >
> > Virtual engines can have a multiple bits set in this mask, so this is
> > used for both the query on physical engines via UABI and submission in
> > the GuC backend.
>
> You could add both fields if that would help. I just think it is preferrable
> to keep the existing convetion of uabi_ prefix for the fields which i915
> refactors must not change willy-nilly.
>
Sure can add another field to make the separation clear.
> >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Also, I think comment should explain what is logical space ie. how the
> > > > > numbering works.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Don't I already do that? I suppose I could add something like:
> > >
> > > Where is it? Can't see it in the uapi kerneldoc AFAICS (for the new query)
> > > or here.
> > >
> >
> > /**
> > * @logical_mask: logical mask of engine, reported to user space via
> > * query IOCTL and used to communicate with the GuC in logical space
> > */
> > > >
> > > > The logical mask within engine class must be contiguous across all
> > > > instances.
> > >
> > > Best not to start mentioning the mask for the first time. Just explain what
> > > logical numbering is in terms of how engines are enumerated in order of
> > > physical instances but skipping the fused off ones. In the kerneldoc for the
> > > new query is I think the right place.
> > >
> >
> > Maybe I can add:
> >
> > The logical mapping is defined on per part basis in the bspec and can
> > very based the parts fusing.
>
> Sounds good, I think that would be useful. But in the uapi kerneldoc.
>
> Perhaps a cross-link to/from the kernel doc which talks about frame split to
> explain consecutive logical instances have to be used. That would tie the
> new query with that uapi in the narrative.
>
Sure, let me see what I can do here.
Matt
> Regards,
>
> Tvrtko
>
> > > > > Not sure the part about GuC needs to be in the comment since uapi is
> > > > > supposed to be backend agnostic.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Communicating with the GuC in logical space is a pretty key point here.
> > > > The communication with the GuC in logical space is backend specific but
> > > > how our hardware works (e.g. split frame workloads must be placed
> > > > logical contiguous) is not. Mentioning the GuC requirement here makes
> > > > sense to me for completeness.
> > >
> > > Yeah might be, I was thinking more about the new query. Query definitely is
> > > backend agnostic but yes it is fine to say in the comment here the new field
> > > is used both for the query and for communicating with GuC.
> > >
> >
> > Sounds good, will make it clear it used for the query and from
> > communicating with the GuC.
> >
> > Matt
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Tvrtko
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Matt
> > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > Tvrtko
> > > > >
> > > > > > u8 class;
> > > > > > u8 instance;
> > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c
> > > > > > index cafb0608ffb4..813a6de01382 100644
> > > > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c
> > > > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c
> > > > > > @@ -3875,6 +3875,7 @@ execlists_create_virtual(struct intel_engine_cs **siblings, unsigned int count)
> > > > > > ve->siblings[ve->num_siblings++] = sibling;
> > > > > > ve->base.mask |= sibling->mask;
> > > > > > + ve->base.logical_mask |= sibling->logical_mask;
> > > > > > /*
> > > > > > * All physical engines must be compatible for their emission
> > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_ads.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_ads.c
> > > > > > index 6926919bcac6..9f5f43a16182 100644
> > > > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_ads.c
> > > > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_ads.c
> > > > > > @@ -176,7 +176,7 @@ static void guc_mapping_table_init(struct intel_gt *gt,
> > > > > > for_each_engine(engine, gt, id) {
> > > > > > u8 guc_class = engine_class_to_guc_class(engine->class);
> > > > > > - system_info->mapping_table[guc_class][engine->instance] =
> > > > > > + system_info->mapping_table[guc_class][ilog2(engine->logical_mask)] =
> > > > > > engine->instance;
> > > > > > }
> > > > > > }
> > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c
> > > > > > index e0eed70f9b92..ffafbac7335e 100644
> > > > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c
> > > > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c
> > > > > > @@ -1401,23 +1401,6 @@ static int deregister_context(struct intel_context *ce, u32 guc_id, bool loop)
> > > > > > return __guc_action_deregister_context(guc, guc_id, loop);
> > > > > > }
> > > > > > -static intel_engine_mask_t adjust_engine_mask(u8 class, intel_engine_mask_t mask)
> > > > > > -{
> > > > > > - switch (class) {
> > > > > > - case RENDER_CLASS:
> > > > > > - return mask >> RCS0;
> > > > > > - case VIDEO_ENHANCEMENT_CLASS:
> > > > > > - return mask >> VECS0;
> > > > > > - case VIDEO_DECODE_CLASS:
> > > > > > - return mask >> VCS0;
> > > > > > - case COPY_ENGINE_CLASS:
> > > > > > - return mask >> BCS0;
> > > > > > - default:
> > > > > > - MISSING_CASE(class);
> > > > > > - return 0;
> > > > > > - }
> > > > > > -}
> > > > > > -
> > > > > > static void guc_context_policy_init(struct intel_engine_cs *engine,
> > > > > > struct guc_lrc_desc *desc)
> > > > > > {
> > > > > > @@ -1459,8 +1442,7 @@ static int guc_lrc_desc_pin(struct intel_context *ce, bool loop)
> > > > > > desc = __get_lrc_desc(guc, desc_idx);
> > > > > > desc->engine_class = engine_class_to_guc_class(engine->class);
> > > > > > - desc->engine_submit_mask = adjust_engine_mask(engine->class,
> > > > > > - engine->mask);
> > > > > > + desc->engine_submit_mask = engine->logical_mask;
> > > > > > desc->hw_context_desc = ce->lrc.lrca;
> > > > > > desc->priority = ce->guc_state.prio;
> > > > > > desc->context_flags = CONTEXT_REGISTRATION_FLAG_KMD;
> > > > > > @@ -3260,6 +3242,7 @@ guc_create_virtual(struct intel_engine_cs **siblings, unsigned int count)
> > > > > > }
> > > > > > ve->base.mask |= sibling->mask;
> > > > > > + ve->base.logical_mask |= sibling->logical_mask;
> > > > > > if (n != 0 && ve->base.class != sibling->class) {
> > > > > > DRM_DEBUG("invalid mixing of engine class, sibling %d, already %d\n",
> > > > > >
More information about the Intel-gfx
mailing list