Am 09.09.24 um 19:19 schrieb Tvrtko Ursulin:
From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursu...@igalia.com>
In FIFO mode We can avoid dropping the lock only to immediately re-acquire
by adding a new drm_sched_rq_update_fifo_locked() helper.
Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursu...@igalia.com>
Cc: Christian König <christian.koe...@amd.com>
Cc: Alex Deucher <alexander.deuc...@amd.com>
Cc: Luben Tuikov <ltuiko...@gmail.com>
Cc: Matthew Brost <matthew.br...@intel.com>
Cc: Philipp Stanner <pstan...@redhat.com>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c | 5 +++--
drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c | 21 ++++++++++++++-------
include/drm/gpu_scheduler.h | 1 +
3 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c
index 6645a8524699..2da677681291 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c
@@ -615,10 +615,11 @@ void drm_sched_entity_push_job(struct drm_sched_job
*sched_job)
atomic_inc(sched->score);
drm_sched_rq_add_entity(rq, entity);
- spin_unlock(&entity->rq_lock);
if (drm_sched_policy == DRM_SCHED_POLICY_FIFO)
- drm_sched_rq_update_fifo(entity, submit_ts);
+ drm_sched_rq_update_fifo_locked(entity, submit_ts);
+
+ spin_unlock(&entity->rq_lock);
drm_sched_wakeup(sched, entity);
}
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c
index ab53ab486fe6..10abbcefe9d8 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c
@@ -163,14 +163,10 @@ static inline void drm_sched_rq_remove_fifo_locked(struct
drm_sched_entity *enti
}
}
-void drm_sched_rq_update_fifo(struct drm_sched_entity *entity, ktime_t ts)
+void drm_sched_rq_update_fifo_locked(struct drm_sched_entity *entity, ktime_t
ts)
{
- /*
- * Both locks need to be grabbed, one to protect from entity->rq change
- * for entity from within concurrent drm_sched_entity_select_rq and the
- * other to update the rb tree structure.
- */
- spin_lock(&entity->rq_lock);
+ lockdep_assert_held(&entity->rq_lock);
+
spin_lock(&entity->rq->lock);
drm_sched_rq_remove_fifo_locked(entity);
@@ -181,6 +177,17 @@ void drm_sched_rq_update_fifo(struct drm_sched_entity
*entity, ktime_t ts)
drm_sched_entity_compare_before);
spin_unlock(&entity->rq->lock);
+}
+
+void drm_sched_rq_update_fifo(struct drm_sched_entity *entity, ktime_t ts)
+{
+ /*
+ * Both locks need to be grabbed, one to protect from entity->rq change
+ * for entity from within concurrent drm_sched_entity_select_rq and the
+ * other to update the rb tree structure.
+ */
+ spin_lock(&entity->rq_lock);
+ drm_sched_rq_update_fifo_locked(entity, ts);
spin_unlock(&entity->rq_lock);
}
I wonder if we shouldn't change the only other occasion calling this to
grab the lock manually as well.
Christian.
diff --git a/include/drm/gpu_scheduler.h b/include/drm/gpu_scheduler.h
index fe8edb917360..a06753987d93 100644
--- a/include/drm/gpu_scheduler.h
+++ b/include/drm/gpu_scheduler.h
@@ -594,6 +594,7 @@ void drm_sched_rq_remove_entity(struct drm_sched_rq *rq,
struct drm_sched_entity *entity);
void drm_sched_rq_update_fifo(struct drm_sched_entity *entity, ktime_t ts);
+void drm_sched_rq_update_fifo_locked(struct drm_sched_entity *entity, ktime_t
ts);
int drm_sched_entity_init(struct drm_sched_entity *entity,
enum drm_sched_priority priority,
