Message ID | 1412941293-6424-1-git-send-email-John.C.Harrison@Intel.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
State | New, archived |
Headers | show |
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 12:41:33PM +0100, John.C.Harrison@Intel.com wrote: > From: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@Intel.com> > > For: VIZ-4377 > Signed-off-by: John.C.Harrison@Intel.com Now I'm confused ... patch 3 made it sound like having the request and the seqno allocated at different points is a really fragile idea? Or is this now all save with everyone using struct request? Please elaborate. I think the idea is solid, since with the scheduler we'll probably want to allocate the seqno even later (to avoid having to deal with out-of-order seqnos). -Daniel > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h | 5 ++++- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c | 10 ++++------ > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c | 10 ++++------ > 4 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h > index e46c78c..d797975 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h > @@ -1979,6 +1979,9 @@ static inline bool i915_gem_request_completed(struct drm_i915_gem_request *req, > if (req->complete) > return true; > > + if (req->seqno == 0) > + return false; > + > i915_gem_complete_requests_ring(req->ring, lazy_coherency); > > return req->complete; > @@ -2482,7 +2485,7 @@ i915_seqno_passed(uint32_t seq1, uint32_t seq2) > return (int32_t)(seq1 - seq2) >= 0; > } > > -int __must_check i915_gem_get_seqno(struct drm_device *dev, u32 *seqno); > +int __must_check i915_gem_prepare_next_seqno(struct drm_device *dev); > int __must_check i915_gem_set_seqno(struct drm_device *dev, u32 seqno); > int __must_check i915_gem_object_get_fence(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj); > int __must_check i915_gem_object_put_fence(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj); > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c > index 260ef47..7db84b2 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c > @@ -2310,12 +2310,15 @@ int i915_gem_set_seqno(struct drm_device *dev, u32 seqno) > } > > int > -i915_gem_get_seqno(struct drm_device *dev, u32 *seqno) > +i915_gem_prepare_next_seqno(struct drm_device *dev) > { > struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = dev->dev_private; > > /* reserve 0 for non-seqno */ > if (dev_priv->next_seqno == 0) { > + /* Why is the full re-initialisation required? Is it only for > + * hardware semaphores? If so, could skip it in the case where > + * semaphores are disabled? */ > int ret = i915_gem_init_seqno(dev, 0); > if (ret) > return ret; > @@ -2323,6 +2326,24 @@ i915_gem_get_seqno(struct drm_device *dev, u32 *seqno) > dev_priv->next_seqno = 1; > } > > + return 0; > +} > + > +static int > +i915_gem_get_seqno(struct drm_device *dev, u32 *seqno) > +{ > + struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = dev->dev_private; > + > + /* reserve 0 for non-seqno */ > + if (dev_priv->next_seqno == 0) { > + /* Should never get here! Must always call 'prepare_next' in > + * advance. This code is called during request submission. > + * Trying to wrap the seqno and the implicit idle() calls that > + * the wrap code makes are a bad idea at this point! */ > + DRM_ERROR("Need to wrap seqno at inopportune moment!\n"); > + return -EBUSY; > + } > + > *seqno = dev_priv->last_seqno = dev_priv->next_seqno++; > return 0; > } > @@ -2366,6 +2387,11 @@ int __i915_add_request(struct intel_engine_cs *ring, > return ret; > } > > + /* Assign an identifier to track this request through the hardware: */ > + ret = i915_gem_get_seqno(ring->dev, &request->seqno); > + if (ret) > + return ret; > + > /* Record the position of the start of the request so that > * should we detect the updated seqno part-way through the > * GPU processing the request, we never over-estimate the > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c > index 5a75eb5..e7d4d20 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c > @@ -802,6 +802,10 @@ static int logical_ring_alloc_request(struct intel_engine_cs *ring, > if (ring->outstanding_lazy_request) > return 0; > > + ret = i915_gem_prepare_next_seqno(ring->dev); > + if (ret) > + return ret; > + > request = kzalloc(sizeof(*request), GFP_KERNEL); > if (request == NULL) > return -ENOMEM; > @@ -809,12 +813,6 @@ static int logical_ring_alloc_request(struct intel_engine_cs *ring, > kref_init(&request->ref); > request->ring = ring; > > - ret = i915_gem_get_seqno(ring->dev, &request->seqno); > - if (ret) { > - kfree(request); > - return ret; > - } > - > /* Hold a reference to the context this request belongs to > * (we will need it when the time comes to emit/retire the > * request). > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c > index 0f2719d..6a2f25d 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c > @@ -2017,6 +2017,10 @@ intel_ring_alloc_request(struct intel_engine_cs *ring) > if (ring->outstanding_lazy_request) > return 0; > > + ret = i915_gem_prepare_next_seqno(ring->dev); > + if (ret) > + return ret; > + > request = kzalloc(sizeof(*request), GFP_KERNEL); > if (request == NULL) > return -ENOMEM; > @@ -2024,12 +2028,6 @@ intel_ring_alloc_request(struct intel_engine_cs *ring) > kref_init(&request->ref); > request->ring = ring; > > - ret = i915_gem_get_seqno(ring->dev, &request->seqno); > - if (ret) { > - kfree(request); > - return ret; > - } > - > ring->outstanding_lazy_request = request; > return 0; > } > -- > 1.7.9.5 > > _______________________________________________ > Intel-gfx mailing list > Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h index e46c78c..d797975 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h @@ -1979,6 +1979,9 @@ static inline bool i915_gem_request_completed(struct drm_i915_gem_request *req, if (req->complete) return true; + if (req->seqno == 0) + return false; + i915_gem_complete_requests_ring(req->ring, lazy_coherency); return req->complete; @@ -2482,7 +2485,7 @@ i915_seqno_passed(uint32_t seq1, uint32_t seq2) return (int32_t)(seq1 - seq2) >= 0; } -int __must_check i915_gem_get_seqno(struct drm_device *dev, u32 *seqno); +int __must_check i915_gem_prepare_next_seqno(struct drm_device *dev); int __must_check i915_gem_set_seqno(struct drm_device *dev, u32 seqno); int __must_check i915_gem_object_get_fence(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj); int __must_check i915_gem_object_put_fence(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj); diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c index 260ef47..7db84b2 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c @@ -2310,12 +2310,15 @@ int i915_gem_set_seqno(struct drm_device *dev, u32 seqno) } int -i915_gem_get_seqno(struct drm_device *dev, u32 *seqno) +i915_gem_prepare_next_seqno(struct drm_device *dev) { struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = dev->dev_private; /* reserve 0 for non-seqno */ if (dev_priv->next_seqno == 0) { + /* Why is the full re-initialisation required? Is it only for + * hardware semaphores? If so, could skip it in the case where + * semaphores are disabled? */ int ret = i915_gem_init_seqno(dev, 0); if (ret) return ret; @@ -2323,6 +2326,24 @@ i915_gem_get_seqno(struct drm_device *dev, u32 *seqno) dev_priv->next_seqno = 1; } + return 0; +} + +static int +i915_gem_get_seqno(struct drm_device *dev, u32 *seqno) +{ + struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = dev->dev_private; + + /* reserve 0 for non-seqno */ + if (dev_priv->next_seqno == 0) { + /* Should never get here! Must always call 'prepare_next' in + * advance. This code is called during request submission. + * Trying to wrap the seqno and the implicit idle() calls that + * the wrap code makes are a bad idea at this point! */ + DRM_ERROR("Need to wrap seqno at inopportune moment!\n"); + return -EBUSY; + } + *seqno = dev_priv->last_seqno = dev_priv->next_seqno++; return 0; } @@ -2366,6 +2387,11 @@ int __i915_add_request(struct intel_engine_cs *ring, return ret; } + /* Assign an identifier to track this request through the hardware: */ + ret = i915_gem_get_seqno(ring->dev, &request->seqno); + if (ret) + return ret; + /* Record the position of the start of the request so that * should we detect the updated seqno part-way through the * GPU processing the request, we never over-estimate the diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c index 5a75eb5..e7d4d20 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c @@ -802,6 +802,10 @@ static int logical_ring_alloc_request(struct intel_engine_cs *ring, if (ring->outstanding_lazy_request) return 0; + ret = i915_gem_prepare_next_seqno(ring->dev); + if (ret) + return ret; + request = kzalloc(sizeof(*request), GFP_KERNEL); if (request == NULL) return -ENOMEM; @@ -809,12 +813,6 @@ static int logical_ring_alloc_request(struct intel_engine_cs *ring, kref_init(&request->ref); request->ring = ring; - ret = i915_gem_get_seqno(ring->dev, &request->seqno); - if (ret) { - kfree(request); - return ret; - } - /* Hold a reference to the context this request belongs to * (we will need it when the time comes to emit/retire the * request). diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c index 0f2719d..6a2f25d 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c @@ -2017,6 +2017,10 @@ intel_ring_alloc_request(struct intel_engine_cs *ring) if (ring->outstanding_lazy_request) return 0; + ret = i915_gem_prepare_next_seqno(ring->dev); + if (ret) + return ret; + request = kzalloc(sizeof(*request), GFP_KERNEL); if (request == NULL) return -ENOMEM; @@ -2024,12 +2028,6 @@ intel_ring_alloc_request(struct intel_engine_cs *ring) kref_init(&request->ref); request->ring = ring; - ret = i915_gem_get_seqno(ring->dev, &request->seqno); - if (ret) { - kfree(request); - return ret; - } - ring->outstanding_lazy_request = request; return 0; }