On 3/31/2025 6:31 PM, Christian König wrote:
This reverts commit c2cc3648ba517a6c270500b5447d5a1efdad5936.
Turned out that this has some negative consequences for some workloads.
Instead check if the cleaner shader should run directly.
Signed-off-by: Christian König <christian.koe...@amd.com>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_ib.c | 4 ++--
drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_vm.c | 2 +-
2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_ib.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_ib.c
index 802743efa3b3..5eab1c1a380c 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_ib.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_ib.c
@@ -191,8 +191,8 @@ int amdgpu_ib_schedule(struct amdgpu_ring *ring, unsigned
int num_ibs,
need_ctx_switch = ring->current_ctx != fence_ctx;
if (ring->funcs->emit_pipeline_sync && job &&
((tmp = amdgpu_sync_get_fence(&job->explicit_sync)) ||
- need_ctx_switch || amdgpu_vm_need_pipeline_sync(ring, job))) {
-
+ (amdgpu_sriov_vf(adev) && need_ctx_switch) ||
Should we need to, do this context switch, only on SRIOV cases
"amdgpu_sriov_vf(adev)" or even in normal BM use cases also?
+ amdgpu_vm_need_pipeline_sync(ring, job))) {
need_pipe_sync = true;
if (tmp)
If yes, could we split this patch into two 1. Actuall revert 2. below
part is new changes?
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_vm.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_vm.c
index b5ddfcbbc9fc..5f0f9e4beea9 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_vm.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_vm.c
@@ -689,7 +689,7 @@ int amdgpu_vm_flush(struct amdgpu_ring *ring, struct
amdgpu_job *job,
patch = amdgpu_ring_init_cond_exec(ring,
ring->cond_exe_gpu_addr);
- if (need_pipe_sync)
+ if (need_pipe_sync || cleaner_shader_needed)
Here now, this pipe line synchronization was usually meant for GPU jobs?
and not for client level switching? may I kno please, why it was OR'ed
for even "cleaner_shader_needed"? Is that do we have any usecases like
where we don't need pipeline sync in between jobs but we need to emit
pipeline sync only when "cleaner_shader_needed" (ie., wrt new
enforce_isolation feature)? - but even though in this
"new_enforce_isolation feature" case - we would be skipping the GPU jobs
level pipe line synchronization within a client? and do we forsee any
synchronization/disruption issues in between jobs within a same client
wrt new enforce_ioslation feature?
Best regards,
Srini
amdgpu_ring_emit_pipeline_sync(ring);
if (cleaner_shader_needed)
