| Message ID | 20240416224953.385726-1-andi.shyti@linux.intel.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | drm/i915/gt: Refactor uabi engine class/instance list creation | expand |
Hi Andi, On 4/17/2024 12:49 AM, Andi Shyti wrote: > For the upcoming changes we need a cleaner way to build the list > of uabi engines. > > Suggested-by: Tvrtko Ursulin<tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com> > Signed-off-by: Andi Shyti<andi.shyti@linux.intel.com> > --- > Hi, > > just sending this patch to unburden the coming series from this > single patch inherited from a previously sent series. > > Andi > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_user.c | 29 ++++++++++++--------- > 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_user.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_user.c > index 833987015b8b..11cc06c0c785 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_user.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_user.c > @@ -203,7 +203,7 @@ static void engine_rename(struct intel_engine_cs *engine, const char *name, u16 > > void intel_engines_driver_register(struct drm_i915_private *i915) > { > - u16 name_instance, other_instance = 0; > + u16 class_instance[I915_LAST_UABI_ENGINE_CLASS + 2] = { }; +2 is confusing here. I think we need a better macro. > struct legacy_ring ring = {}; > struct list_head *it, *next; > struct rb_node **p, *prev; > @@ -214,6 +214,8 @@ void intel_engines_driver_register(struct drm_i915_private *i915) > prev = NULL; > p = &i915->uabi_engines.rb_node; > list_for_each_safe(it, next, &engines) { > + u16 uabi_class; > + > struct intel_engine_cs *engine = > container_of(it, typeof(*engine), uabi_list); > > @@ -222,15 +224,14 @@ void intel_engines_driver_register(struct drm_i915_private *i915) > > GEM_BUG_ON(engine->class >= ARRAY_SIZE(uabi_classes)); > engine->uabi_class = uabi_classes[engine->class]; > - if (engine->uabi_class == I915_NO_UABI_CLASS) { > - name_instance = other_instance++; > - } else { > - GEM_BUG_ON(engine->uabi_class >= > - ARRAY_SIZE(i915->engine_uabi_class_count)); > - name_instance = > - i915->engine_uabi_class_count[engine->uabi_class]++; > - } > - engine->uabi_instance = name_instance; > + > + if (engine->uabi_class == I915_NO_UABI_CLASS) > + uabi_class = I915_LAST_UABI_ENGINE_CLASS + 1; > + else > + uabi_class = engine->uabi_class; > + > + GEM_BUG_ON(uabi_class >= ARRAY_SIZE(class_instance)); > + engine->uabi_instance = class_instance[uabi_class]++; > > /* > * Replace the internal name with the final user and log facing > @@ -238,11 +239,15 @@ void intel_engines_driver_register(struct drm_i915_private *i915) > */ > engine_rename(engine, > intel_engine_class_repr(engine->class), > - name_instance); > + engine->uabi_instance); > > - if (engine->uabi_class == I915_NO_UABI_CLASS) > + if (uabi_class > I915_LAST_UABI_ENGINE_CLASS) > continue; > > + GEM_BUG_ON(uabi_class >= > + ARRAY_SIZE(i915->engine_uabi_class_count)); > + i915->engine_uabi_class_count[uabi_class]++; Shouldn't this be i915->engine_uabi_class_count[uabi_class] = class_instance[uabi_class]; ? What I see is that this patch mainly adding this class_instance array and rest looks the same. May be it make sense to add other upcoming patches to better understand why we need this patch. Regards, Nirmoy > + > rb_link_node(&engine->uabi_node, prev, p); > rb_insert_color(&engine->uabi_node, &i915->uabi_engines); >
Hi Nirmoy, On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 11:02:06AM +0200, Nirmoy Das wrote: > On 4/17/2024 12:49 AM, Andi Shyti wrote: ... > void intel_engines_driver_register(struct drm_i915_private *i915) > { > - u16 name_instance, other_instance = 0; > + u16 class_instance[I915_LAST_UABI_ENGINE_CLASS + 2] = { }; > > +2 is confusing here. I think we need a better macro. This is to avoid buffer overflow, otherwise we will always hit the GEM_BUG_ON below. > struct legacy_ring ring = {}; > struct list_head *it, *next; > struct rb_node **p, *prev; ... > + GEM_BUG_ON(uabi_class >= > + ARRAY_SIZE(i915->engine_uabi_class_count)); > + i915->engine_uabi_class_count[uabi_class]++; > > Shouldn't this be i915->engine_uabi_class_count[uabi_class] = class_instance > [uabi_class]; ? that's mostly a counter, we don't really need to be on sync with the real instance of the engines. > What I see is that this patch mainly adding this class_instance array and rest > looks the same. > May be it make sense to add other upcoming patches to better understand why we > need this patch. yes, this patch simplifies the coming patches and the logic inside, as well. I just wanted to anticipate some of the refactorings so that we could speed up the reviews. There is no functional change in here, that's why I thought it was harmless. Thanks for taking a look into it. Andi
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_user.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_user.c index 833987015b8b..11cc06c0c785 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_user.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_user.c @@ -203,7 +203,7 @@ static void engine_rename(struct intel_engine_cs *engine, const char *name, u16 void intel_engines_driver_register(struct drm_i915_private *i915) { - u16 name_instance, other_instance = 0; + u16 class_instance[I915_LAST_UABI_ENGINE_CLASS + 2] = { }; struct legacy_ring ring = {}; struct list_head *it, *next; struct rb_node **p, *prev; @@ -214,6 +214,8 @@ void intel_engines_driver_register(struct drm_i915_private *i915) prev = NULL; p = &i915->uabi_engines.rb_node; list_for_each_safe(it, next, &engines) { + u16 uabi_class; + struct intel_engine_cs *engine = container_of(it, typeof(*engine), uabi_list); @@ -222,15 +224,14 @@ void intel_engines_driver_register(struct drm_i915_private *i915) GEM_BUG_ON(engine->class >= ARRAY_SIZE(uabi_classes)); engine->uabi_class = uabi_classes[engine->class]; - if (engine->uabi_class == I915_NO_UABI_CLASS) { - name_instance = other_instance++; - } else { - GEM_BUG_ON(engine->uabi_class >= - ARRAY_SIZE(i915->engine_uabi_class_count)); - name_instance = - i915->engine_uabi_class_count[engine->uabi_class]++; - } - engine->uabi_instance = name_instance; + + if (engine->uabi_class == I915_NO_UABI_CLASS) + uabi_class = I915_LAST_UABI_ENGINE_CLASS + 1; + else + uabi_class = engine->uabi_class; + + GEM_BUG_ON(uabi_class >= ARRAY_SIZE(class_instance)); + engine->uabi_instance = class_instance[uabi_class]++; /* * Replace the internal name with the final user and log facing @@ -238,11 +239,15 @@ void intel_engines_driver_register(struct drm_i915_private *i915) */ engine_rename(engine, intel_engine_class_repr(engine->class), - name_instance); + engine->uabi_instance); - if (engine->uabi_class == I915_NO_UABI_CLASS) + if (uabi_class > I915_LAST_UABI_ENGINE_CLASS) continue; + GEM_BUG_ON(uabi_class >= + ARRAY_SIZE(i915->engine_uabi_class_count)); + i915->engine_uabi_class_count[uabi_class]++; + rb_link_node(&engine->uabi_node, prev, p); rb_insert_color(&engine->uabi_node, &i915->uabi_engines);
For the upcoming changes we need a cleaner way to build the list of uabi engines. Suggested-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com> Signed-off-by: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@linux.intel.com> --- Hi, just sending this patch to unburden the coming series from this single patch inherited from a previously sent series. Andi drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_user.c | 29 ++++++++++++--------- 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)