From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com>
To: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] drm/i915/breadcrumbs: Drop request reference for the signaler thread
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2018 13:23:54 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <9517cdab-87fb-4838-b1f3-30983bf4af99@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180203101914.24880-1-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
On 03/02/2018 10:19, Chris Wilson wrote:
> If we remember to cancel the signaler on a request when retiring it
> (after we know that the request has been signaled), we do not need to
> carry an additional request in the signaler itself. This prevents an
> issue whereby the signaler threads may be delayed and hold on to
> thousands of request references, causing severe memory fragmentation and
> premature oom (most noticeable on 32b snb due to the limited GFP_KERNEL
> and frequent use of inter-engine fences).
>
> v2: Rename first_signal(), document reads outside of locks.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_request.c | 6 +-
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_breadcrumbs.c | 150 +++++++++++++++++--------------
> 2 files changed, 86 insertions(+), 70 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_request.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_request.c
> index 5ff57211ee06..dc7cc2c55bc7 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_request.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_request.c
> @@ -555,7 +555,10 @@ static void i915_gem_request_retire(struct drm_i915_gem_request *request)
> spin_lock_irq(&request->lock);
> if (request->waitboost)
> atomic_dec(&request->i915->gt_pm.rps.num_waiters);
> - dma_fence_signal_locked(&request->fence);
> + if (!test_bit(DMA_FENCE_FLAG_SIGNALED_BIT, &request->fence.flags))
> + dma_fence_signal_locked(&request->fence);
> + if (test_bit(DMA_FENCE_FLAG_ENABLE_SIGNAL_BIT, &request->fence.flags))
> + intel_engine_cancel_signaling(request);
> spin_unlock_irq(&request->lock);
>
> i915_priotree_fini(request->i915, &request->priotree);
> @@ -864,6 +867,7 @@ i915_gem_request_alloc(struct intel_engine_cs *engine,
>
> /* No zalloc, must clear what we need by hand */
> req->global_seqno = 0;
> + req->signaling.wait.seqno = 0;
> req->file_priv = NULL;
> req->batch = NULL;
> req->capture_list = NULL;
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_breadcrumbs.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_breadcrumbs.c
> index 62b2a20bc24e..efbc627a2a25 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_breadcrumbs.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_breadcrumbs.c
> @@ -224,7 +224,7 @@ void intel_engine_disarm_breadcrumbs(struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
> struct intel_wait *wait, *n;
>
> if (!b->irq_armed)
> - goto wakeup_signaler;
> + return;
>
> /*
> * We only disarm the irq when we are idle (all requests completed),
> @@ -249,14 +249,6 @@ void intel_engine_disarm_breadcrumbs(struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
> b->waiters = RB_ROOT;
>
> spin_unlock_irq(&b->rb_lock);
> -
> - /*
> - * The signaling thread may be asleep holding a reference to a request,
> - * that had its signaling cancelled prior to being preempted. We need
> - * to kick the signaler, just in case, to release any such reference.
> - */
> -wakeup_signaler:
> - wake_up_process(b->signaler);
> }
>
> static bool use_fake_irq(const struct intel_breadcrumbs *b)
> @@ -633,6 +625,63 @@ static void signaler_set_rtpriority(void)
> sched_setscheduler_nocheck(current, SCHED_FIFO, ¶m);
> }
>
> +static void __intel_engine_remove_signal(struct intel_engine_cs *engine,
> + struct drm_i915_gem_request *request)
> +{
> + struct intel_breadcrumbs *b = &engine->breadcrumbs;
> +
> + lockdep_assert_held(&b->rb_lock);
> +
> + /*
> + * Wake up all other completed waiters and select the
> + * next bottom-half for the next user interrupt.
> + */
> + __intel_engine_remove_wait(engine, &request->signaling.wait);
> +
> + /*
> + * Find the next oldest signal. Note that as we have
> + * not been holding the lock, another client may
> + * have installed an even older signal than the one
> + * we just completed - so double check we are still
> + * the oldest before picking the next one.
> + */
> + if (request->signaling.wait.seqno) {
> + if (request == rcu_access_pointer(b->first_signal)) {
> + struct rb_node *rb = rb_next(&request->signaling.node);
> + rcu_assign_pointer(b->first_signal,
> + rb ? to_signaler(rb) : NULL);
> + }
> +
> + rb_erase(&request->signaling.node, &b->signals);
> + request->signaling.wait.seqno = 0;
> + }
> +}
> +
> +static struct drm_i915_gem_request *
> +get_first_signal_rcu(struct intel_breadcrumbs *b)
> +{
> + /*
> + * See the big warnings for i915_gem_active_get_rcu() and similarly
> + * for dma_fence_get_rcu_safe() that explain the intricacies involved
> + * here with defeating CPU/compiler speculation and enforcing
> + * the required memory barriers.
> + */
> + do {
> + struct drm_i915_gem_request *request;
> +
> + request = rcu_dereference(b->first_signal);
> + if (request)
> + request = i915_gem_request_get_rcu(request);
> +
> + barrier();
> +
> + if (!request || request == rcu_access_pointer(b->first_signal))
> + return rcu_pointer_handoff(request);
> +
> + i915_gem_request_put(request);
> + } while (1);
> +}
> +
> static int intel_breadcrumbs_signaler(void *arg)
> {
> struct intel_engine_cs *engine = arg;
> @@ -656,41 +705,21 @@ static int intel_breadcrumbs_signaler(void *arg)
> * a new client.
> */
> rcu_read_lock();
> - request = rcu_dereference(b->first_signal);
> - if (request)
> - request = i915_gem_request_get_rcu(request);
> + request = get_first_signal_rcu(b);
> rcu_read_unlock();
> if (signal_complete(request)) {
> - local_bh_disable();
> - dma_fence_signal(&request->fence);
> - local_bh_enable(); /* kick start the tasklets */
> -
> - spin_lock_irq(&b->rb_lock);
> -
> - /* Wake up all other completed waiters and select the
> - * next bottom-half for the next user interrupt.
> - */
> - __intel_engine_remove_wait(engine,
> - &request->signaling.wait);
> -
> - /* Find the next oldest signal. Note that as we have
> - * not been holding the lock, another client may
> - * have installed an even older signal than the one
> - * we just completed - so double check we are still
> - * the oldest before picking the next one.
> - */
> - if (request == rcu_access_pointer(b->first_signal)) {
> - struct rb_node *rb =
> - rb_next(&request->signaling.node);
> - rcu_assign_pointer(b->first_signal,
> - rb ? to_signaler(rb) : NULL);
> + if (!test_bit(DMA_FENCE_FLAG_SIGNALED_BIT,
> + &request->fence.flags)) {
> + local_bh_disable();
> + dma_fence_signal(&request->fence);
> + local_bh_enable(); /* kick start the tasklets */
> }
> - rb_erase(&request->signaling.node, &b->signals);
> - RB_CLEAR_NODE(&request->signaling.node);
> -
> - spin_unlock_irq(&b->rb_lock);
>
> - i915_gem_request_put(request);
> + if (READ_ONCE(request->signaling.wait.seqno)) {
> + spin_lock_irq(&b->rb_lock);
> + __intel_engine_remove_signal(engine, request);
> + spin_unlock_irq(&b->rb_lock);
> + }
How would you view taking the request->lock over this block in the
signaler and then being able to call simply
intel_engine_cancel_signaling - ending up with very similar code as in
i915_gem_request_retire?
Only difference would be the tasklet kicking, but maybe still it would
be possible to consolidate the two in one helper.
__i915_gem_request_retire_signaling(req, bool kick_tasklets)
{
if (!DMA_FENCE_FLAG_SIGNALED_BIT) {
dma_fence_signal_locked(...);
if (kick_tasklets) {
local_bh_disable();
local_bh_enable();
}
}
if (DMA_FENCE_FLAG_ENABLE_SIGNAL_BIT)
intel_engine_cancel_signaling(...);
}
i915_gem_request_retire_signaling(req)
{
spin_lock_irq(req->lock);
__i915_gem_request_retire_signaling(req, true);
spin_unlock_irq(req->lock);
}
And call the former from request retire, and later from signaler?
Regards,
Tvrtko
>
> /* If the engine is saturated we may be continually
> * processing completed requests. This angers the
> @@ -701,19 +730,17 @@ static int intel_breadcrumbs_signaler(void *arg)
> */
> do_schedule = need_resched();
> }
> + i915_gem_request_put(request);
>
> if (unlikely(do_schedule)) {
> if (kthread_should_park())
> kthread_parkme();
>
> - if (unlikely(kthread_should_stop())) {
> - i915_gem_request_put(request);
> + if (unlikely(kthread_should_stop()))
> break;
> - }
>
> schedule();
> }
> - i915_gem_request_put(request);
> } while (1);
> __set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
>
> @@ -742,12 +769,12 @@ void intel_engine_enable_signaling(struct drm_i915_gem_request *request,
> if (!seqno)
> return;
>
> + spin_lock(&b->rb_lock);
> +
> + GEM_BUG_ON(request->signaling.wait.seqno);
> request->signaling.wait.tsk = b->signaler;
> request->signaling.wait.request = request;
> request->signaling.wait.seqno = seqno;
> - i915_gem_request_get(request);
> -
> - spin_lock(&b->rb_lock);
>
> /* First add ourselves into the list of waiters, but register our
> * bottom-half as the signaller thread. As per usual, only the oldest
> @@ -786,7 +813,7 @@ void intel_engine_enable_signaling(struct drm_i915_gem_request *request,
> rcu_assign_pointer(b->first_signal, request);
> } else {
> __intel_engine_remove_wait(engine, &request->signaling.wait);
> - i915_gem_request_put(request);
> + request->signaling.wait.seqno = 0;
> wakeup = false;
> }
>
> @@ -798,32 +825,17 @@ void intel_engine_enable_signaling(struct drm_i915_gem_request *request,
>
> void intel_engine_cancel_signaling(struct drm_i915_gem_request *request)
> {
> - struct intel_engine_cs *engine = request->engine;
> - struct intel_breadcrumbs *b = &engine->breadcrumbs;
> -
> GEM_BUG_ON(!irqs_disabled());
> lockdep_assert_held(&request->lock);
> - GEM_BUG_ON(!request->signaling.wait.seqno);
>
> - spin_lock(&b->rb_lock);
> + if (READ_ONCE(request->signaling.wait.seqno)) {
> + struct intel_engine_cs *engine = request->engine;
> + struct intel_breadcrumbs *b = &engine->breadcrumbs;
>
> - if (!RB_EMPTY_NODE(&request->signaling.node)) {
> - if (request == rcu_access_pointer(b->first_signal)) {
> - struct rb_node *rb =
> - rb_next(&request->signaling.node);
> - rcu_assign_pointer(b->first_signal,
> - rb ? to_signaler(rb) : NULL);
> - }
> - rb_erase(&request->signaling.node, &b->signals);
> - RB_CLEAR_NODE(&request->signaling.node);
> - i915_gem_request_put(request);
> + spin_lock(&b->rb_lock);
> + __intel_engine_remove_signal(engine, request);
> + spin_unlock(&b->rb_lock);
> }
> -
> - __intel_engine_remove_wait(engine, &request->signaling.wait);
> -
> - spin_unlock(&b->rb_lock);
> -
> - request->signaling.wait.seqno = 0;
> }
>
> int intel_engine_init_breadcrumbs(struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
>
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-02-05 13:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-01-22 15:41 [PATCH] drm/i915/breadcrumbs: Drop request reference for the signaler thread Chris Wilson
2018-01-22 16:07 ` ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: warning for " Patchwork
2018-01-22 19:01 ` ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success " Patchwork
2018-01-23 0:03 ` ✗ Fi.CI.IGT: failure " Patchwork
2018-01-24 13:09 ` [PATCH] " Tvrtko Ursulin
2018-01-24 14:44 ` Chris Wilson
2018-01-26 9:42 ` Chris Wilson
2018-01-31 10:02 ` Chris Wilson
2018-01-31 17:18 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2018-01-31 17:30 ` Chris Wilson
2018-01-31 20:40 ` Chris Wilson
2018-01-31 20:43 ` Chris Wilson
2018-02-03 10:19 ` [PATCH v2] " Chris Wilson
2018-02-05 13:23 ` Tvrtko Ursulin [this message]
2018-02-05 13:36 ` Chris Wilson
2018-02-05 13:39 ` Chris Wilson
2018-02-05 13:45 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2018-02-05 16:11 ` Chris Wilson
2018-02-03 10:40 ` ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success for drm/i915/breadcrumbs: Drop request reference for the signaler thread (rev2) Patchwork
2018-02-03 11:32 ` ✗ Fi.CI.IGT: failure " Patchwork
2018-02-05 16:09 ` Chris Wilson
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=9517cdab-87fb-4838-b1f3-30983bf4af99@linux.intel.com \
--to=tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com \
--cc=chris@chris-wilson.co.uk \
--cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.