Re: [PATCH 12/13] drm/i915: Consolidate legacy semaphore initialization

Tvrtko Ursulin
2016-07-20T16:07:53Z

On 20/07/16 13:50, Dave Gordon wrote:
> On 20/07/16 10:54, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>>
>> On 19/07/16 19:38, Dave Gordon wrote:
>>> On 15/07/16 14:13, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 29/06/16 17:00, Chris Wilson wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 04:41:58PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 29/06/16 16:34, Chris Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 04:09:31PM +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>>>>>>>> From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Replace per-engine initialization with a common half-programatic,
>>>>>>>> half-data driven code for ease of maintenance and compactness.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is the biggest pill to swallow (since our 5x5 table is only
>>>>>>> sparsely populated), but it looks correct, and more importantly
>>>>>>> easier to
>>>>>>> read.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah I was out of ideas on how to improve it. Fresh mind needed to
>>>>>> try and spot a pattern in how MI_SEMAPHORE_SYNC_* and GEN6_*SYNC map
>>>>>> to bits and registers respectively, and write it as a function.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's actually a very simple cyclic function based on register
>>>>> offset = base + (signaler hw_id - waiter hw_id - 1) % num_rings.
>>>>>
>>>>> (The only real challenge is picking the direction.)
>>>>>
>>>>> commit c8c99b0f0dea1ced5d0e10cdb9143356cc16b484
>>>>> Author: Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net>
>>>>> Date: Wed Sep 14 20:32:47 2011 -0700
>>>>>
>>>>> drm/i915: Dumb down the semaphore logic
>>>>>
>>>>> While I think the previous code is correct, it was hard to follow
>>>>> and
>>>>> hard to debug. Since we already have a ring abstraction, might as
>>>>> well
>>>>> use it to handle the semaphore updates and compares.
>>>>
>>>> Doesn't seem to fit, or I just can't figure it out. Needs two functions
>>>> to get rid of the table:
>>>>
>>>> f1(0, 1) = 2
>>>> f1(0, 2) = 0
>>>> f1(0, 3) = 2
>>>> f1(1, 0) = 0
>>>> f1(1, 2) = 2
>>>> f1(1, 3) = 1
>>>> f1(2, 0) = 2
>>>> f1(2, 1) = 0
>>>> f1(2, 3) = 0
>>>> f1(3, 0) = 1
>>>> f1(3, 1) = 1
>>>> f1(3, 2) = 1
>>>>
>>>> and:
>>>>
>>>> f2(0, 1) = 1
>>>> f2(0, 2) = 0
>>>> f2(0, 3) = 1
>>>> f2(1, 0) = 0
>>>> f2(1, 2) = 1
>>>> f2(1, 3) = 2
>>>> f2(2, 0) = 1
>>>> f2(2, 1) = 0
>>>> f2(2, 3) = 0
>>>> f2(3, 0) = 2
>>>> f2(3, 1) = 2
>>>> f2(3, 2) = 2
>>>>
>>>> A weekend math puzzle for someone? :)
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Tvrtko
>>>
>>> Here's the APL expression for (the transpose of) f2, with -1's filled in
>>> along the leading diagonal (you need ⎕io←0 so the ⍳-vectors are in
>>> origin 0)
>>>
>>> {¯1+(⍵≠⍳4)⍀(2|⍵)⌽(⌽⍣(1=⍵))1+⍳3}¨⍳4
>>>
>>> ┌────────┬────────┬────────┬────────┐
>>> │¯1 0 1 2│1 ¯1 0 2│0 1 ¯1 2│1 2 0 ¯1│
>>> └────────┴────────┴────────┴────────┘
>>>
>>> or transposed back so that the first argument is the row index and the
>>> second is the column index:
>>>
>>> ⍉↑{¯1+(⍵≠⍳4)⍀(2|⍵)⌽(⌽⍣(1=⍵))1+⍳3}¨⍳4
>>>
>>> ¯1 1 0 1
>>> 0 ¯1 1 2
>>> 1 0 ¯1 0
>>> 2 2 2 ¯1
>>>
>>> http://tryapl.org/?a=%u2349%u2191%7B%AF1+%28%u2375%u2260%u23734%29%u2340%282%7C%u2375%29%u233D%28%u233D%u2363%281%3D%u2375%29%291+%u23733%7D%A8%u23734&run
>>>
>>>
>>
>> :-C ! How to convert that to C ? :)
>>
>>> f1 is trivially derived from this by the observation that f1 is just f2
>>> with the 1's and 2's interchanged.
>>
>> Ah yes, nicely spotted.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Tvrtko
>
> Assuming you don't care about the leading diagonal (x == y), then
>
> (⍵≠⍳4)⍀(2|⍵)⌽(⌽⍣(1=⍵))
>
> translates into:
>
> int f2(unsigned int x, unsigned int y)
> {
> x -= x >= y;
> if (y == 1)
> x = 3 - x;
> x += y & 1;
> return x % 3;
> }
>
> y:x 0 1 2 3
> 0: 0 0 1 2
> 1: 1 1 0 2
> 2: 0 1 1 2
> 3: 1 2 0 0
>
> Each line of C corresponds quite closely to one operation in the APL :)
> Although, in APL we tend to leave the data unchanged while shuffling it
> around into new shapes, whereas the C below does the equivalent things
> by changing the data (noting that it's all modulo-3 arithmetic).
>
> (⍵≠⍳4)⍀ inserts the leading diagonal, corresponding to the subtraction
> of x >= y (which removes the leading diagonal).
>
> ⌽⍣(1=⍵) reverses the sequence if y==1; in C, that's the 3-x
>
> (2|⍵)⌽ rotates the sequence by 1 if y is odd; that's the +=
>
> and the final % ensures that the result is 0-2.

I was hoping for a solution which does not include conditionals, someone
led me to believe it is possible! :)

But thanks, your transformation really works. I've sent a patch
implementing it to trybot for now.

Regards,

Tvrtko