On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 05:16:15PM +0100, John Harrison wrote: > On 18/06/2015 16:39, Chris Wilson wrote: > >On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 04:24:53PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > >>On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 01:59:13PM +0100, John Harrison wrote: > >>>On 18/06/2015 13:21, Chris Wilson wrote: > >>>>On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 01:14:56PM +0100, john.c.harri...@intel.com wrote: > >>>>>From: John Harrison <john.c.harri...@intel.com> > >>>>> > >>>>>The plan is to pass requests around as the basic submission tracking > >>>>>structure > >>>>>rather than rings and contexts. This patch updates the > >>>>>i915_gem_object_sync() > >>>>>code path. > >>>>> > >>>>>v2: Much more complex patch to share a single request between the sync > >>>>>and the > >>>>>page flip. The _sync() function now supports lazy allocation of the > >>>>>request > >>>>>structure. That is, if one is passed in then that will be used. If one > >>>>>is not, > >>>>>then a request will be allocated and passed back out. Note that the > >>>>>_sync() code > >>>>>does not necessarily require a request. Thus one will only be created > >>>>>until > >>>>>certain situations. The reason the lazy allocation must be done within > >>>>>the > >>>>>_sync() code itself is because the decision to need one or not is not > >>>>>really > >>>>>something that code above can second guess (except in the case where one > >>>>>is > >>>>>definitely not required because no ring is passed in). > >>>>> > >>>>>The call chains above _sync() now support passing a request through > >>>>>which most > >>>>>callers passing in NULL and assuming that no request will be required > >>>>>(because > >>>>>they also pass in NULL for the ring and therefore can't be generating > >>>>>any ring > >>>>>code). > >>>>> > >>>>>The exeception is intel_crtc_page_flip() which now supports having a > >>>>>request > >>>>>returned from _sync(). If one is, then that request is shared by the > >>>>>page flip > >>>>>(if the page flip is of a type to need a request). If _sync() does not > >>>>>generate > >>>>>a request but the page flip does need one, then the page flip path will > >>>>>create > >>>>>its own request. > >>>>> > >>>>>v3: Updated comment description to be clearer about 'to_req' parameter > >>>>>(Tomas > >>>>>Elf review request). Rebased onto newer tree that significantly changed > >>>>>the > >>>>>synchronisation code. > >>>>> > >>>>>v4: Updated comments from review feedback (Tomas Elf) > >>>>> > >>>>>For: VIZ-5115 > >>>>>Signed-off-by: John Harrison <john.c.harri...@intel.com> > >>>>>Reviewed-by: Tomas Elf <tomas....@intel.com> > >>>>>--- > >>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h | 4 ++- > >>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c | 48 > >>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++------- > >>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_execbuffer.c | 2 +- > >>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 17 +++++++--- > >>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h | 3 +- > >>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_fbdev.c | 2 +- > >>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c | 2 +- > >>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_overlay.c | 2 +- > >>>>> 8 files changed, 57 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-) > >>>>> > >>>>>diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h > >>>>>b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h > >>>>>index 64a10fa..f69e9cb 100644 > >>>>>--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h > >>>>>+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h > >>>>>@@ -2778,7 +2778,8 @@ static inline void > >>>>>i915_gem_object_unpin_pages(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj) > >>>>> int __must_check i915_mutex_lock_interruptible(struct drm_device *dev); > >>>>> int i915_gem_object_sync(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj, > >>>>>- struct intel_engine_cs *to); > >>>>>+ struct intel_engine_cs *to, > >>>>>+ struct drm_i915_gem_request **to_req); > >>>>Nope. Did you forget to reorder the code to ensure that the request is > >>>>allocated along with the context switch at the start of execbuf? > >>>>-Chris > >>>> > >>>Not sure what you are objecting to? If you mean the lazily allocated > >>>request > >>>then that is for page flip code not execbuff code. If we get here from an > >>>execbuff call then the request will definitely have been allocated and will > >>>be passed in. Whereas the page flip code may or may not require a request > >>>(depending on whether MMIO or ring flips are in use. Likewise the sync code > >>>may or may not require a request (depending on whether there is anything to > >>>sync to or not). There is no point allocating and submitting an empty > >>>request in the MMIO/idle case. Hence the sync code needs to be able to use > >>>an existing request or create one if none already exists. > >>I guess Chris' comment was that if you have a non-NULL to, then you better > >>have a non-NULL to_req. And since we link up reqeusts to the engine > >>they'll run on the former shouldn't be required any more. So either that's > >>true and we can remove the to or we don't understand something yet (and > >>perhaps that should be done as a follow-up). > >I am sure I sent a patch that outlined in great detail how that we need > >only the request parameter in i915_gem_object_sync(), for handling both > >execbuffer, pipelined pin_and_fence and synchronous pin_and_fence. > >-Chris > > > > As the driver stands, the page flip code wants to synchronise with the > framebuffer object but potentially without touching the ring and therefore > without creating a request. If the synchronisation is a no-op (because there > are no outstanding operations on the given object) then there is no need for > a request anywhere in the call chain. Thus there is a need to pass in the > ring together with an optional request and to be able to pass out a request > that has been created internally. > > > if you have a non-NULL to, then you better have a non-NULL to_req > > I assume you mean 'a non-NULL *to_req'? > > No, that is the whole point. If you have a non-null '*to_req' then 'to' must > be non-null (and specifically must be the ring that '*to_req' is > referencing). However, it is valid to have a non-null 'to' and a null > '*to_req'. In the case of MMIO flips, the page flip itself does not require > a request as it does not go through the ring. However, it still passes in > 'i915_gem_request_get_ring(obj->last_write_req)' as the ring to synchronise > to. Thus it is potentially passing in a valid to pointer but without wanting > to pre-allocate a request object. If the synchronisation requires writing a > semaphore to the ring then a request will be created internally and passed > back out for the page flip code to submit (and to re-use in the case of > non-MMIO flips). But if the synchronisation is a no-op then no request ever > gets created or submitting and nothing touches the ring at all.
We use mmio flips by default if there's any ring switching going on, which means except when a user sets a silly debug module option this will never happend. Which means it's not too pretty to carry this complication around for no real use at all. Otoh the flip code is in a massive churn because of atomic, so not much point in cleaning that out if it'll all disapear anyway. I'll smash a patch on top to note this TODO. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
