On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 04:46:57PM -0700, Daniele Ceraolo Spurio wrote:
>
>
> On 7/16/2021 1:16 PM, Matthew Brost wrote:
> > If two requests are on the same ring, they are explicitly ordered by the
> > HW. So, a submission fence is sufficient to ensure ordering when using
> > the new GuC submission interface. Conversely, if two requests share a
> > timeline and are on the same physical engine but different context this
> > doesn't ensure ordering on the new GuC submission interface. So, a
> > completion fence needs to be used to ensure ordering.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: John Harrison <john.c.harri...@intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Matthew Brost <matthew.br...@intel.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c | 1 -
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c | 12 ++++++++++--
> > 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c
> > index 9dc1a256e185..4443cc6f5320 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c
> > @@ -933,7 +933,6 @@ static void guc_context_sched_disable(struct
> > intel_context *ce)
> > * a request before we set the 'context_pending_disable' flag here.
> > */
> > if (unlikely(atomic_add_unless(&ce->pin_count, -2, 2))) {
> > - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ce->guc_state.lock, flags);
>
> incorrect spinlock drop is still here. Everything else looks ok (my
No it isn't not. See the return directly below the drop of the spin lock.
Matt
> suggestion to use an engine flag stands, but can be addressed as a follow
> up).
>
Not sure I follow this one, but we can sync and address in a follow if
needed.
Matt
> Daniele
>
> > return;
> > }
> > guc_id = prep_context_pending_disable(ce);
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c
> > index b48c4905d3fc..2b2b63cba06c 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c
> > @@ -432,6 +432,7 @@ void i915_request_retire_upto(struct i915_request *rq)
> > do {
> > tmp = list_first_entry(&tl->requests, typeof(*tmp), link);
> > + GEM_BUG_ON(!i915_request_completed(tmp));
> > } while (i915_request_retire(tmp) && tmp != rq);
> > }
> > @@ -1380,6 +1381,9 @@ i915_request_await_external(struct i915_request *rq,
> > struct dma_fence *fence)
> > return err;
> > }
> > +static int
> > +i915_request_await_request(struct i915_request *to, struct i915_request
> > *from);
> > +
> > int
> > i915_request_await_execution(struct i915_request *rq,
> > struct dma_fence *fence)
> > @@ -1465,7 +1469,8 @@ i915_request_await_request(struct i915_request *to,
> > struct i915_request *from)
> > return ret;
> > }
> > - if (is_power_of_2(to->execution_mask | READ_ONCE(from->execution_mask)))
> > + if (!intel_engine_uses_guc(to->engine) &&
> > + is_power_of_2(to->execution_mask | READ_ONCE(from->execution_mask)))
> > ret = await_request_submit(to, from);
> > else
> > ret = emit_semaphore_wait(to, from, I915_FENCE_GFP);
> > @@ -1626,6 +1631,8 @@ __i915_request_add_to_timeline(struct i915_request
> > *rq)
> > prev = to_request(__i915_active_fence_set(&timeline->last_request,
> > &rq->fence));
> > if (prev && !__i915_request_is_complete(prev)) {
> > + bool uses_guc = intel_engine_uses_guc(rq->engine);
> > +
> > /*
> > * The requests are supposed to be kept in order. However,
> > * we need to be wary in case the timeline->last_request
> > @@ -1636,7 +1643,8 @@ __i915_request_add_to_timeline(struct i915_request
> > *rq)
> > i915_seqno_passed(prev->fence.seqno,
> > rq->fence.seqno));
> > - if (is_power_of_2(READ_ONCE(prev->engine)->mask |
> > rq->engine->mask))
> > + if ((!uses_guc && is_power_of_2(READ_ONCE(prev->engine)->mask |
> > rq->engine->mask)) ||
> > + (uses_guc && prev->context == rq->context))
> > i915_sw_fence_await_sw_fence(&rq->submit,
> > &prev->submit,
> > &rq->submitq);
>
