From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@igalia.com>
To: "Maíra Canal" <mcanal@igalia.com>, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
Cc: kernel-dev@igalia.com, intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org,
amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org,
"Christian König" <christian.koenig@amd.com>,
"Danilo Krummrich" <dakr@kernel.org>,
"Matthew Brost" <matthew.brost@intel.com>,
"Philipp Stanner" <phasta@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/sched: Avoid double re-lock on the job free path
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2025 15:46:44 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <b5ff1fba-0e2c-4d02-8b9d-49c3c313e65d@igalia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f535c0bf-225a-40c9-b6a1-5bfbb5ebec0d@igalia.com>
On 16/07/2025 15:30, Maíra Canal wrote:
> Hi Tvrtko,
>
> On 16/07/25 10:49, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>>
>> On 16/07/2025 14:31, Maíra Canal wrote:
>>> Hi Tvrtko,
>>>
>>> On 16/07/25 05:51, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>>>> Currently the job free work item will lock sched->job_list_lock
>>>> first time
>>>> to see if there are any jobs, free a single job, and then lock again to
>>>> decide whether to re-queue itself if there are more finished jobs.
>>>>
>>>> Since drm_sched_get_finished_job() already looks at the second job
>>>> in the
>>>> queue we can simply add the signaled check and have it return the
>>>> presence
>>>> of more jobs to be freed to the caller. That way the work item does not
>>>> have to lock the list again and repeat the signaled check.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@igalia.com>
>>>> Cc: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
>>>> Cc: Danilo Krummrich <dakr@kernel.org>
>>>> Cc: Maíra Canal <mcanal@igalia.com>
>>>> Cc: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@intel.com>
>>>> Cc: Philipp Stanner <phasta@kernel.org>
>>>> ---
>>>> v2:
>>>> * Improve commit text and kerneldoc. (Philipp)
>>>> * Rename run free work helper. (Philipp)
>>>>
>>>> v3:
>>>> * Rebase on top of Maira's changes.
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c | 53 +++++++++
>>>> +----------------
>>>> 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c b/drivers/gpu/
>>>> drm/ scheduler/sched_main.c
>>>> index e2cda28a1af4..5a550fd76bf0 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c
>>>> @@ -349,34 +349,13 @@ static void drm_sched_run_job_queue(struct
>>>> drm_gpu_scheduler *sched)
>>>> }
>>>> /**
>>>> - * __drm_sched_run_free_queue - enqueue free-job work
>>>> - * @sched: scheduler instance
>>>> - */
>>>> -static void __drm_sched_run_free_queue(struct drm_gpu_scheduler
>>>> *sched)
>>>> -{
>>>> - if (!READ_ONCE(sched->pause_submit))
>>>> - queue_work(sched->submit_wq, &sched->work_free_job);
>>>> -}
>>>> -
>>>> -/**
>>>> - * drm_sched_run_free_queue - enqueue free-job work if ready
>>>> + * drm_sched_run_free_queue - enqueue free-job work
>>>> * @sched: scheduler instance
>>>> */
>>>> static void drm_sched_run_free_queue(struct drm_gpu_scheduler *sched)
>>>> {
>>>> - struct drm_sched_job *job;
>>>> -
>>>> - job = list_first_entry_or_null(&sched->pending_list,
>>>> - struct drm_sched_job, list);
>>>> - if (job && dma_fence_is_signaled(&job->s_fence->finished))
>>>> - __drm_sched_run_free_queue(sched);
>>>
>>> I believe we'd still need this chunk for DRM_GPU_SCHED_STAT_NO_HANG
>>> (check the comment in drm_sched_job_reinsert_on_false_timeout()). How
>>
>> You mean the "is there a signaled job in the list check" is needed for
>> drm_sched_job_reinsert_on_false_timeout()? Hmm why? Worst case is a
>> false positive wakeup on the free worker, no?
>
> Correct me if I'm mistaken, we would also have a false positive wake-up
> on the run_job worker, which I believe it could be problematic in the
> cases that we skipped the reset because the job is still running.
Run job worker exits when it sees no free credits so I don't think there
is a problem. What am I missing?
Regards,
Tvrtko
>>> about only deleting drm_sched_run_free_queue_unlocked() and keep using
>>> __drm_sched_run_free_queue()?
>>
>> You mean use __drm_sched_run_free_queue() from
>> drm_sched_job_reinsert_on_false_timeout()? That is the same as
>> drm_sched_run_free_queue() with this patch.
>
> Sorry, I believe I didn't express myself clearly. I mean, using
> __drm_sched_run_free_queue() in drm_sched_free_job_work() and keep using
> drm_sched_run_free_queue() in drm_sched_job_reinsert_on_false_timeout().
>
> Best Regards,
> - Maíra
>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Tvrtko
>>
>>>> -}
>>>> -
>>>> -static void drm_sched_run_free_queue_unlocked(struct
>>>> drm_gpu_scheduler *sched)
>>>> -{
>>>> - spin_lock(&sched->job_list_lock);
>>>> - drm_sched_run_free_queue(sched);
>>>> - spin_unlock(&sched->job_list_lock);
>>>> + if (!READ_ONCE(sched->pause_submit))
>>>> + queue_work(sched->submit_wq, &sched->work_free_job);
>>>> }
>>>> /**
>>>> @@ -398,7 +377,7 @@ static void drm_sched_job_done(struct
>>>> drm_sched_job *s_job, int result)
>>>> dma_fence_get(&s_fence->finished);
>>>> drm_sched_fence_finished(s_fence, result);
>>>> dma_fence_put(&s_fence->finished);
>>>> - __drm_sched_run_free_queue(sched);
>>>> + drm_sched_run_free_queue(sched);
>>>> }
>>>> /**
>>>> @@ -1134,12 +1113,16 @@ drm_sched_select_entity(struct
>>>> drm_gpu_scheduler *sched)
>>>> * drm_sched_get_finished_job - fetch the next finished job to be
>>>> destroyed
>>>> *
>>>> * @sched: scheduler instance
>>>> + * @have_more: are there more finished jobs on the list
>>>> + *
>>>> + * Informs the caller through @have_more whether there are more
>>>> finished jobs
>>>> + * besides the returned one.
>>>> *
>>>> * Returns the next finished job from the pending list (if there
>>>> is one)
>>>> * ready for it to be destroyed.
>>>> */
>>>> static struct drm_sched_job *
>>>> -drm_sched_get_finished_job(struct drm_gpu_scheduler *sched)
>>>> +drm_sched_get_finished_job(struct drm_gpu_scheduler *sched, bool
>>>> *have_more)
>>>> {
>>>> struct drm_sched_job *job, *next;
>>>> @@ -1147,22 +1130,25 @@ drm_sched_get_finished_job(struct
>>>> drm_gpu_scheduler *sched)
>>>> job = list_first_entry_or_null(&sched->pending_list,
>>>> struct drm_sched_job, list);
>>>> -
>>>> if (job && dma_fence_is_signaled(&job->s_fence->finished)) {
>>>> /* remove job from pending_list */
>>>> list_del_init(&job->list);
>>>> /* cancel this job's TO timer */
>>>> cancel_delayed_work(&sched->work_tdr);
>>>> - /* make the scheduled timestamp more accurate */
>>>> +
>>>> + *have_more = false;
>>>> next = list_first_entry_or_null(&sched->pending_list,
>>>> typeof(*next), list);
>>>> -
>>>> if (next) {
>>>> + /* make the scheduled timestamp more accurate */
>>>> if (test_bit(DMA_FENCE_FLAG_TIMESTAMP_BIT,
>>>> &next->s_fence->scheduled.flags))
>>>> next->s_fence->scheduled.timestamp =
>>>> dma_fence_timestamp(&job->s_fence->finished);
>>>> +
>>>> + *have_more = dma_fence_is_signaled(&next->s_fence-
>>>> >finished);
>>>> +
>>>> /* start TO timer for next job */
>>>> drm_sched_start_timeout(sched);
>>>> }
>>>> @@ -1221,12 +1207,15 @@ static void drm_sched_free_job_work(struct
>>>> work_struct *w)
>>>> struct drm_gpu_scheduler *sched =
>>>> container_of(w, struct drm_gpu_scheduler, work_free_job);
>>>> struct drm_sched_job *job;
>>>> + bool have_more;
>>>> - job = drm_sched_get_finished_job(sched);
>>>> - if (job)
>>>> + job = drm_sched_get_finished_job(sched, &have_more);
>>>> + if (job) {
>>>> sched->ops->free_job(job);
>>>> + if (have_more)
>>>> + drm_sched_run_free_queue(sched);
>>>> + }
>>>> - drm_sched_run_free_queue_unlocked(sched);
>>>> drm_sched_run_job_queue(sched);
>>>> }
>>>
>>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-07-16 14:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-07-16 8:51 [PATCH] drm/sched: Avoid double re-lock on the job free path Tvrtko Ursulin
2025-07-16 13:31 ` Maíra Canal
2025-07-16 13:49 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2025-07-16 14:30 ` Maíra Canal
2025-07-16 14:46 ` Tvrtko Ursulin [this message]
2025-07-16 20:44 ` Maíra Canal
2025-07-18 7:13 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2025-07-18 9:31 ` Philipp Stanner
2025-07-18 9:35 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2025-07-18 9:41 ` Philipp Stanner
2025-07-18 10:18 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2025-07-08 12:20 Tvrtko Ursulin
2025-07-09 4:45 ` Matthew Brost
2025-07-09 10:49 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2025-07-09 17:22 ` Matthew Brost
2025-07-11 12:39 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2025-07-11 13:04 ` Philipp Stanner
2025-07-11 15:11 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2025-01-14 10:59 Tvrtko Ursulin
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=b5ff1fba-0e2c-4d02-8b9d-49c3c313e65d@igalia.com \
--to=tvrtko.ursulin@igalia.com \
--cc=amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=christian.koenig@amd.com \
--cc=dakr@kernel.org \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=kernel-dev@igalia.com \
--cc=matthew.brost@intel.com \
--cc=mcanal@igalia.com \
--cc=phasta@kernel.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).