From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, HK_RANDOM_FROM,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0D6CC38A2A for ; Thu, 7 May 2020 15:10:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (gabe.freedesktop.org [131.252.210.177]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 868792073A for ; Thu, 7 May 2020 15:10:44 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 868792073A Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 391846E9E6; Thu, 7 May 2020 15:10:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7CBF26E9E6 for ; Thu, 7 May 2020 15:10:42 +0000 (UTC) IronPort-SDR: 3HYD7AHDisXGdXaw7OWtlx5wWlJTcVn3wsrGv4wNqgebstwCA1WHvnW22mAUP+WwELx06t25Jw NtzzqVdZGK8g== X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga005.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.41]) by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 07 May 2020 08:10:41 -0700 IronPort-SDR: UX0vFnwfvhjzdiJDeS5SvUM9l48fMRJ9bPWfyTJVjgdv3N9CXXuBY2pHDSo8XtmLB75VPgylRV nwuUGERE7+yQ== X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.73,364,1583222400"; d="scan'208";a="435319857" Received: from nstgemme-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.252.42.100]) ([10.252.42.100]) by orsmga005-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 07 May 2020 08:10:40 -0700 To: Chris Wilson , intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org References: <20200507082124.1673-1-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> <20200507082124.1673-2-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> <746f07e6-7e85-d11e-3e7a-2fe850891b01@linux.intel.com> <158886392555.20858.15356860967210945301@build.alporthouse.com> From: Tvrtko Ursulin Organization: Intel Corporation UK Plc Message-ID: <2340d9e2-31b8-3989-ebaf-8e2fd7bf32b0@linux.intel.com> Date: Thu, 7 May 2020 16:10:37 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <158886392555.20858.15356860967210945301@build.alporthouse.com> Content-Language: en-US Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/3] drm/i915/gem: Treat submit-fence as weak dependency for new clients X-BeenThere: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Intel graphics driver community testing & development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Sender: "Intel-gfx" On 07/05/2020 16:05, Chris Wilson wrote: > Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2020-05-07 15:59:56) >> >> On 07/05/2020 09:21, Chris Wilson wrote: >>> The submit-fence adds a weak dependency to the requests, and for the >>> purpose of our FQ_CODEL hinting we do not want to treat as a >>> restriction. This is primarily because clients may treat submit-fences >>> as a bidirectional bonding between a pair of co-ordinating requests. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson >>> Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin >>> --- >>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_execbuffer.c | 13 ++++++++++++- >>> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_execbuffer.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_execbuffer.c >>> index 966523a8503f..e8bf0cf02fd7 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_execbuffer.c >>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_execbuffer.c >>> @@ -2565,6 +2565,17 @@ static void retire_requests(struct intel_timeline *tl, struct i915_request *end) >>> break; >>> } >>> >>> +static bool new_client(struct i915_request *rq) >>> +{ >>> + struct i915_dependency *p; >>> + >>> + list_for_each_entry(p, &rq->sched.signalers_list, signal_link) >>> + if (!(p->flags & I915_DEPENDENCY_WEAK)) >>> + return false; >>> + >>> + return true; >>> +} >>> + >>> static void eb_request_add(struct i915_execbuffer *eb) >>> { >>> struct i915_request *rq = eb->request; >>> @@ -2604,7 +2615,7 @@ static void eb_request_add(struct i915_execbuffer *eb) >>> * Allow interactive/synchronous clients to jump ahead of >>> * the bulk clients. (FQ_CODEL) >>> */ >>> - if (list_empty(&rq->sched.signalers_list)) >>> + if (new_client(rq)) >>> attr.priority |= I915_PRIORITY_WAIT; >>> } else { >>> /* Serialise with context_close via the add_to_timeline */ >>> >> >> Did absence of this have any functional effect? I hope not, but anyway: > > Bah, I have a new test case where this WAIT bumping is still upsetting us. > > I don't think I have any choice but to rip it out if we have timeslicing > enabled. > > Would you prefer a complete remission of I915_PRIORITY_WAIT or keep it > under if (!intel_engine_has_timeslicing(rq->engine)) ? Doesn't feel worthwhile to keep it for just BDW right? Regards, Tvrtko _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx