From: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
To: DRI Development <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>
Cc: "Andrey Grodzovsky" <andrey.grodzovsky@amd.com>,
"Daniel Vetter" <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>,
"Intel Graphics Development" <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
"Steven Price" <steven.price@arm.com>,
"Daniel Vetter" <daniel.vetter@intel.com>,
"Lee Jones" <lee.jones@linaro.org>,
"Christian König" <christian.koenig@amd.com>
Subject: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v3 03/20] drm/sched: Barriers are needed for entity->last_scheduled
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2021 19:37:37 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210708173754.3877540-4-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210708173754.3877540-1-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
It might be good enough on x86 with just READ_ONCE, but the write side
should then at least be WRITE_ONCE because x86 has total store order.
It's definitely not enough on arm.
Fix this proplery, which means
- explain the need for the barrier in both places
- point at the other side in each comment
Also pull out the !sched_list case as the first check, so that the
code flow is clearer.
While at it sprinkle some comments around because it was very
non-obvious to me what's actually going on here and why.
Note that we really need full barriers here, at first I thought
store-release and load-acquire on ->last_scheduled would be enough,
but we actually requiring ordering between that and the queue state.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>
Cc: "Christian König" <christian.koenig@amd.com>
Cc: Steven Price <steven.price@arm.com>
Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
Cc: Andrey Grodzovsky <andrey.grodzovsky@amd.com>
Cc: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
Cc: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@collabora.com>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++--
1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c
index 64d398166644..4e1124ed80e0 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_entity.c
@@ -439,8 +439,16 @@ struct drm_sched_job *drm_sched_entity_pop_job(struct drm_sched_entity *entity)
dma_fence_set_error(&sched_job->s_fence->finished, -ECANCELED);
dma_fence_put(entity->last_scheduled);
+
entity->last_scheduled = dma_fence_get(&sched_job->s_fence->finished);
+ /*
+ * if the queue is empty we allow drm_sched_job_arm() to locklessly
+ * access ->last_scheduled. This only works if we set the pointer before
+ * we dequeue and if we a write barrier here.
+ */
+ smp_wmb();
+
spsc_queue_pop(&entity->job_queue);
return sched_job;
}
@@ -459,10 +467,25 @@ void drm_sched_entity_select_rq(struct drm_sched_entity *entity)
struct drm_gpu_scheduler *sched;
struct drm_sched_rq *rq;
- if (spsc_queue_count(&entity->job_queue) || !entity->sched_list)
+ /* single possible engine and already selected */
+ if (!entity->sched_list)
+ return;
+
+ /* queue non-empty, stay on the same engine */
+ if (spsc_queue_count(&entity->job_queue))
return;
- fence = READ_ONCE(entity->last_scheduled);
+ fence = entity->last_scheduled;
+
+ /*
+ * Only when the queue is empty are we guaranteed the the scheduler
+ * thread cannot change ->last_scheduled. To enforce ordering we need
+ * a read barrier here. See drm_sched_entity_pop_job() for the other
+ * side.
+ */
+ smp_rmb();
+
+ /* stay on the same engine if the previous job hasn't finished */
if (fence && !dma_fence_is_signaled(fence))
return;
--
2.32.0
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-07-08 17:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-07-08 17:37 [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v3 00/20] drm/sched dependency tracking and dma-resv fixes Daniel Vetter
2021-07-08 17:37 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v3 01/20] drm/sched: entity->rq selection cannot fail Daniel Vetter
2021-07-09 6:53 ` Christian König
2021-07-09 7:14 ` Daniel Vetter
2021-07-09 7:23 ` Christian König
2021-07-09 8:00 ` Daniel Vetter
2021-07-09 8:11 ` Christian König
2021-07-08 17:37 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v3 02/20] drm/sched: Split drm_sched_job_init Daniel Vetter
2021-07-08 17:37 ` Daniel Vetter [this message]
2021-07-08 18:56 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v3 03/20] drm/sched: Barriers are needed for entity->last_scheduled Andrey Grodzovsky
2021-07-08 19:53 ` Daniel Vetter
2021-07-08 21:54 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] " Daniel Vetter
2021-07-09 6:57 ` Christian König
2021-07-09 7:40 ` Daniel Vetter
2021-07-08 17:37 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v3 04/20] drm/sched: Add dependency tracking Daniel Vetter
2021-07-08 17:37 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v3 05/20] drm/sched: drop entity parameter from drm_sched_push_job Daniel Vetter
2021-07-08 17:37 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v3 06/20] drm/sched: improve docs around drm_sched_entity Daniel Vetter
2021-07-08 17:37 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v3 07/20] drm/panfrost: use scheduler dependency tracking Daniel Vetter
2021-07-12 9:19 ` Steven Price
2021-07-08 17:37 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v3 08/20] drm/lima: " Daniel Vetter
2021-07-08 17:37 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v3 09/20] drm/v3d: Move drm_sched_job_init to v3d_job_init Daniel Vetter
2021-07-08 17:37 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v3 10/20] drm/v3d: Use scheduler dependency handling Daniel Vetter
2021-07-08 17:37 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v3 11/20] drm/etnaviv: " Daniel Vetter
2021-07-08 17:37 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v3 12/20] drm/gem: Delete gem array fencing helpers Daniel Vetter
2021-07-08 17:37 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v3 13/20] drm/sched: Don't store self-dependencies Daniel Vetter
2021-07-08 17:37 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v3 14/20] drm/sched: Check locking in drm_sched_job_await_implicit Daniel Vetter
2021-07-08 17:37 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v3 15/20] drm/msm: Don't break exclusive fence ordering Daniel Vetter
2021-07-08 17:37 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v3 16/20] drm/msm: always wait for the exclusive fence Daniel Vetter
2021-07-09 8:48 ` Christian König
2021-07-09 9:15 ` Daniel Vetter
2021-07-08 17:37 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v3 17/20] drm/etnaviv: Don't break exclusive fence ordering Daniel Vetter
2021-07-08 17:37 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v3 18/20] drm/i915: delete exclude argument from i915_sw_fence_await_reservation Daniel Vetter
2021-07-08 17:37 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v3 19/20] drm/i915: Don't break exclusive fence ordering Daniel Vetter
2021-07-08 17:37 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v3 20/20] dma-resv: Give the docs a do-over Daniel Vetter
2021-07-09 0:03 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.CHECKPATCH: warning for drm/sched dependency tracking and dma-resv fixes (rev2) Patchwork
2021-07-09 0:29 ` [Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success " Patchwork
2021-07-09 15:27 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.IGT: failure " Patchwork
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=20210708173754.3877540-4-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch \
--to=daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch \
--cc=andrey.grodzovsky@amd.com \
--cc=christian.koenig@amd.com \
--cc=daniel.vetter@intel.com \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=lee.jones@linaro.org \
--cc=steven.price@arm.com \
/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