Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2019-03-01 15:07:58)
>
> On 01/03/2019 11:36, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2019-03-01 11:31:26)
> >>
> >> ping on below
> >>
> >> On 28/02/2019 13:11, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 26/02/2019 10:23, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >>>> On unwinding the active request we give it a small (limited to internal
> >>>> priority levels) boost to prevent it from being gazumped a second time.
> >>>> However, this means that it can be promoted to above the request that
> >>>> triggered the preemption request, causing a preempt-to-idle cycle for no
> >>>> change. We can avoid this if we take the boost into account when
> >>>> checking if the preemption request is valid.
> >>>>
> >>>> v2: After preemption the active request will be after the preemptee if
> >>>> they end up with equal priority.
> >>>>
> >>>> v3: Tvrtko pointed out that this, the existing logic, makes
> >>>> I915_PRIORITY_WAIT non-preemptible. Document this interesting quirk!
> >>>>
> >>>> v4: Prove Tvrtko was right about WAIT being non-preemptible and test it.
> >>>> v5: Except not all priorities were made equal, and the WAIT not
> >>>> preempting
> >>>> is only if we start off as !NEWCLIENT.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> >>>> Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursu...@intel.com>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> >>>> 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c
> >>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c
> >>>> index 0e20f3bc8210..dba19baf6808 100644
> >>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c
> >>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c
> >>>> @@ -164,6 +164,8 @@
> >>>> #define WA_TAIL_DWORDS 2
> >>>> #define WA_TAIL_BYTES (sizeof(u32) * WA_TAIL_DWORDS)
> >>>> +#define ACTIVE_PRIORITY (I915_PRIORITY_NEWCLIENT)
> >>>> +
> >>>> static int execlists_context_deferred_alloc(struct i915_gem_context
> >>>> *ctx,
> >>>> struct intel_engine_cs *engine,
> >>>> struct intel_context *ce);
> >>>> @@ -190,8 +192,30 @@ static inline int rq_prio(const struct
> >>>> i915_request *rq)
> >>>> static int effective_prio(const struct i915_request *rq)
> >>>> {
> >>>> + int prio = rq_prio(rq);
> >>>> +
> >>>> + /*
> >>>> + * On unwinding the active request, we give it a priority bump
> >>>> + * equivalent to a freshly submitted request. This protects it from
> >>>> + * being gazumped again, but it would be preferable if we didn't
> >>>> + * let it be gazumped in the first place!
> >>>> + *
> >>>> + * See __unwind_incomplete_requests()
> >>>> + */
> >>>> + if (~prio & ACTIVE_PRIORITY && __i915_request_has_started(rq)) {
> >>>> + /*
> >>>> + * After preemption, we insert the active request at the
> >>>> + * end of the new priority level. This means that we will be
> >>>> + * _lower_ priority than the preemptee all things equal (and
> >>>> + * so the preemption is valid), so adjust our comparison
> >>>> + * accordingly.
> >>>> + */
> >>>> + prio |= ACTIVE_PRIORITY;
> >>>> + prio--;
> >>>> + }
> >>>> +
> >>>> /* Restrict mere WAIT boosts from triggering preemption */
> >>>> - return rq_prio(rq) | __NO_PREEMPTION;
> >>>> + return prio | __NO_PREEMPTION;
> >>>> }
> >>>> static int queue_prio(const struct intel_engine_execlists *execlists)
> >>>> @@ -359,7 +383,7 @@ __unwind_incomplete_requests(struct
> >>>> intel_engine_cs *engine)
> >>>> {
> >>>> struct i915_request *rq, *rn, *active = NULL;
> >>>> struct list_head *uninitialized_var(pl);
> >>>> - int prio = I915_PRIORITY_INVALID | I915_PRIORITY_NEWCLIENT;
> >>>> + int prio = I915_PRIORITY_INVALID | ACTIVE_PRIORITY;
> >>>> lockdep_assert_held(&engine->timeline.lock);
> >>>> @@ -390,9 +414,15 @@ __unwind_incomplete_requests(struct
> >>>> intel_engine_cs *engine)
> >>>> * The active request is now effectively the start of a new client
> >>>> * stream, so give it the equivalent small priority bump to
> >>>> prevent
> >>>> * it being gazumped a second time by another peer.
> >>>> + *
> >>>> + * One consequence of this preemption boost is that we may jump
> >>>> + * over lesser priorities (such as I915_PRIORITY_WAIT), effectively
> >>>> + * making those priorities non-preemptible. They will be moved
> >>>> forward
> >>>
> >>> After the previous patch wait priority is non-preemptible by definition
> >>> making this suggestion preemption boost is making it so not accurate.
> >>>
> >>>> + * in the priority queue, but they will not gain immediate access to
> >>>> + * the GPU.
> >>>> */
> >>>> - if (!(prio & I915_PRIORITY_NEWCLIENT)) {
> >>>> - prio |= I915_PRIORITY_NEWCLIENT;
> >>>> + if (~prio & ACTIVE_PRIORITY && __i915_request_has_started(active)) {
> >>>
> >>> What is the importance of the has_started check? Hasn't the active
> >>> request been running by definition?
> >
> > No. Semaphores. This is all about defending against incorrect promotion
> > while a request is still spinning on its dependencies (or else we get
> > promoted above them and PI is broken).
>
> Is init_breadcrumb after the semaphore, ie. __i915_request_has_started
> will be false while spinning on the semaphore.
Yes, that's the raison d'etre for making init_breadcrumbs and
i915_request_has_started.
> That possibly makes
> sense.. But you know what I'll say next. It is extremely subtle and
> sprinkled over the code so here we definitely need a comment explaining it.
I've been trying, but it's all baked into the meaning of has-started and
active request. :| But I didn't extend the comment before
i915_request_has_started() to explain the bit about semaphores, so mea
culpa.
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
