Skip to content

K
Kernel

openeuler / Kernel
1 年多 前同步成功

通知 8
Star 0
Fork 0
K
Kernel
切换分支/标签
  1. 25 7月, 2019 1 次提交
  3. 14 7月, 2019 3 次提交
  5. 13 7月, 2019 1 次提交
  7. 12 7月, 2019 1 次提交
  9. 11 7月, 2019 2 次提交
  11. 10 7月, 2019 1 次提交
  13. 20 6月, 2019 1 次提交
    • C
      drm/i915/execlists: Preempt-to-busy · 22b7a426
      由 Chris Wilson 提交于 
      When using a global seqno, we required a precise stop-the-workd event to
handle preemption and unwind the global seqno counter. To accomplish
this, we would preempt to a special out-of-band context and wait for the
machine to report that it was idle. Given an idle machine, we could very
precisely see which requests had completed and which we needed to feed
back into the run queue.

However, now that we have scrapped the global seqno, we no longer need
to precisely unwind the global counter and only track requests by their
per-context seqno. This allows us to loosely unwind inflight requests
while scheduling a preemption, with the enormous caveat that the
requests we put back on the run queue are still _inflight_ (until the
preemption request is complete). This makes request tracking much more
messy, as at any point then we can see a completed request that we
believe is not currently scheduled for execution. We also have to be
careful not to rewind RING_TAIL past RING_HEAD on preempting to the
running context, and for this we use a semaphore to prevent completion
of the request before continuing.

To accomplish this feat, we change how we track requests scheduled to
the HW. Instead of appending our requests onto a single list as we
submit, we track each submission to ELSP as its own block. Then upon
receiving the CS preemption event, we promote the pending block to the
inflight block (discarding what was previously being tracked). As normal
CS completion events arrive, we then remove stale entries from the
inflight tracker.

v2: Be a tinge paranoid and ensure we flush the write into the HWS page
for the GPU semaphore to pick in a timely fashion.
Signed-off-by: NChris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Reviewed-by: NMika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@linux.intel.com>
Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20190620142052.19311-1-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk
      22b7a426
  15. 15 6月, 2019 1 次提交
  17. 12 6月, 2019 1 次提交
  19. 07 6月, 2019 1 次提交
  21. 28 5月, 2019 2 次提交
  23. 24 5月, 2019 1 次提交
  25. 13 5月, 2019 1 次提交
    • C
      drm/i915: Seal races between async GPU cancellation, retirement and signaling · c36beba6
      由 Chris Wilson 提交于 
      Currently there is an underlying assumption that i915_request_unsubmit()
is synchronous wrt the GPU -- that is the request is no longer in flight
as we remove it. In the near future that may change, and this may upset
our signaling as we can process an interrupt for that request while it
is no longer in flight.

CPU0					CPU1
intel_engine_breadcrumbs_irq
(queue request completion)
					i915_request_cancel_signaling
...					...
					i915_request_enable_signaling
dma_fence_signal

Hence in the time it took us to drop the lock to signal the request, a
preemption event may have occurred and re-queued the request. In the
process, that request would have seen I915_FENCE_FLAG_SIGNAL clear and
so reused the rq->signal_link that was in use on CPU0, leading to bad
pointer chasing in intel_engine_breadcrumbs_irq.

A related issue was that if someone started listening for a signal on a
completed but no longer in-flight request, we missed the opportunity to
immediately signal that request.

Furthermore, as intel_contexts may be immediately released during
request retirement, in order to be entirely sure that
intel_engine_breadcrumbs_irq may no longer dereference the intel_context
(ce->signals and ce->signal_link), we must wait for irq spinlock.

In order to prevent the race, we use a bit in the fence.flags to signal
the transfer onto the signal list inside intel_engine_breadcrumbs_irq.
For simplicity, we use the DMA_FENCE_FLAG_SIGNALED_BIT as it then
quickly signals to any outside observer that the fence is indeed signaled.

v2: Sketch out potential dma-fence API for manual signaling
v3: And the test_and_set_bit()

Fixes: 52c0fdb2 ("drm/i915: Replace global breadcrumbs with per-context interrupt tracking")
Signed-off-by: NChris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: NTvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20190508112452.18942-1-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk
(cherry picked from commit 0152b3b3)
Signed-off-by: NJoonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@linux.intel.com>
      c36beba6
  27. 08 5月, 2019 2 次提交
    • C
      drm/i915: Seal races between async GPU cancellation, retirement and signaling · 0152b3b3
      由 Chris Wilson 提交于 
      Currently there is an underlying assumption that i915_request_unsubmit()
is synchronous wrt the GPU -- that is the request is no longer in flight
as we remove it. In the near future that may change, and this may upset
our signaling as we can process an interrupt for that request while it
is no longer in flight.

CPU0					CPU1
intel_engine_breadcrumbs_irq
(queue request completion)
					i915_request_cancel_signaling
...					...
					i915_request_enable_signaling
dma_fence_signal

Hence in the time it took us to drop the lock to signal the request, a
preemption event may have occurred and re-queued the request. In the
process, that request would have seen I915_FENCE_FLAG_SIGNAL clear and
so reused the rq->signal_link that was in use on CPU0, leading to bad
pointer chasing in intel_engine_breadcrumbs_irq.

A related issue was that if someone started listening for a signal on a
completed but no longer in-flight request, we missed the opportunity to
immediately signal that request.

Furthermore, as intel_contexts may be immediately released during
request retirement, in order to be entirely sure that
intel_engine_breadcrumbs_irq may no longer dereference the intel_context
(ce->signals and ce->signal_link), we must wait for irq spinlock.

In order to prevent the race, we use a bit in the fence.flags to signal
the transfer onto the signal list inside intel_engine_breadcrumbs_irq.
For simplicity, we use the DMA_FENCE_FLAG_SIGNALED_BIT as it then
quickly signals to any outside observer that the fence is indeed signaled.

v2: Sketch out potential dma-fence API for manual signaling
v3: And the test_and_set_bit()

Fixes: 52c0fdb2 ("drm/i915: Replace global breadcrumbs with per-context interrupt tracking")
Signed-off-by: NChris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: NTvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20190508112452.18942-1-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk
      0152b3b3
    • C
      drm/i915: Only reschedule the submission tasklet if preemption is possible · 25d851ad
      由 Chris Wilson 提交于 
      If we couple the scheduler more tightly with the execlists policy, we
can apply the preemption policy to the question of whether we need to
kick the tasklet at all for this priority bump.

v2: Rephrase it as a core i915 policy and not an execlists foible.
v3: Pull the kick together.
Signed-off-by: NChris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: NTvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20190507122544.12698-1-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk
      25d851ad
  29. 03 5月, 2019 1 次提交
  31. 27 4月, 2019 1 次提交
  33. 25 4月, 2019 1 次提交
  35. 12 4月, 2019 1 次提交
  37. 09 4月, 2019 2 次提交
  39. 03 4月, 2019 1 次提交
  41. 19 3月, 2019 1 次提交
  43. 08 3月, 2019 1 次提交
  45. 06 3月, 2019 1 次提交
  47. 01 3月, 2019 1 次提交
    • C
      drm/i915/execlists: Suppress mere WAIT preemption · b5773a36
      由 Chris Wilson 提交于 
      WAIT is occasionally suppressed by virtue of preempted requests being
promoted to NEWCLIENT if they have not all ready received that boost.
Make this consistent for all WAIT boosts that they are not allowed to
preempt executing contexts and are merely granted the right to be at the
front of the queue for the next execution slot. This is in keeping with
the desire that the WAIT boost be a minor tweak that does not give
excessive promotion to its user and open ourselves to trivial abuse.

The problem with the inconsistent WAIT preemption becomes more apparent
as the preemption is propagated across the engines, where one engine may
preempt and the other not, and we be relying on the exact execution
order being consistent across engines (e.g. using HW semaphores to
coordinate parallel execution).

v2: Also protect GuC submission from false preemption loops.
v3: Build bug safeguards and better debug messages for st.
v4: Do the priority bumping in unsubmit (i.e. on preemption/reset
unwind), applying it earlier during submit causes out-of-order execution
combined with execute fences.
v5: Call sw_fence_fini for our dummy request (Matthew)
Signed-off-by: NChris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: NTvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
Cc: Matthew Auld <matthew.auld@intel.com>
Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20190228220639.3173-1-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk
      b5773a36
  49. 28 2月, 2019 1 次提交
  51. 26 2月, 2019 1 次提交
  53. 30 1月, 2019 2 次提交
    • C
      drm/i915/execlists: Suppress preempting self · c9a64622
      由 Chris Wilson 提交于 
      In order to avoid preempting ourselves, we currently refuse to schedule
the tasklet if we reschedule an inflight context. However, this glosses
over a few issues such as what happens after a CS completion event and
we then preempt the newly executing context with itself, or if something
else causes a tasklet_schedule triggering the same evaluation to
preempt the active context with itself.

However, when we avoid preempting ELSP[0], we still retain the preemption
value as it may match a second preemption request within the same time period
that we need to resolve after the next CS event. However, since we only
store the maximum preemption priority seen, it may not match the
subsequent event and so we should double check whether or not we
actually do need to trigger a preempt-to-idle by comparing the top
priorities from each queue. Later, this gives us a hook for finer
control over deciding whether the preempt-to-idle is justified.

The sequence of events where we end up preempting for no avail is:

1. Queue requests/contexts A, B
2. Priority boost A; no preemption as it is executing, but keep hint
3. After CS switch, B is less than hint, force preempt-to-idle
4. Resubmit B after idling

v2: We can simplify a bunch of tests based on the knowledge that PI will
ensure that earlier requests along the same context will have the highest
priority.
v3: Demonstrate the stale preemption hint with a selftest

References: a2bf92e8 ("drm/i915/execlists: Avoid kicking priority on the current context")
Signed-off-by: NChris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: NTvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20190129185452.20989-4-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk
      c9a64622
    • C
      drm/i915: Rename execlists->queue_priority to queue_priority_hint · 4d97cbe0
      由 Chris Wilson 提交于 
      After noticing that we trigger preemption events for currently executing
requests, as well as requests that complete before the preemption and
attempting to suppress those preemption events, it is wise to not
consider the queue_priority to be authoritative. As we only track the
maximum priority seen between dequeue passes, if the maximum priority
request is no longer available for dequeuing (it completed or is even
executing on another engine), we have no knowledge of the previous
queue_priority as it would require us to keep a full history of enqueued
requests -- but we already have that history in the priolists!

Rename the queue_priority to queue_priority_hint so that we do not
confuse it as being exactly the maximum priority in the queue, but merely
an indication that we have seen a new maximum priority value and as such
we should check whether it should preempt the currently running request.

v2: s/preempt_priority_hint/queue_priority_hint/ as preempt implies it
being only used for the singular task of preemption and not the wider
question of waking up due to a change in the queue.
Signed-off-by: NChris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: NTvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20190129185452.20989-3-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk
      4d97cbe0
  55. 29 1月, 2019 1 次提交
  57. 25 1月, 2019 2 次提交
  59. 29 12月, 2018 1 次提交
  61. 23 10月, 2018 2 次提交