From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com>
To: John.C.Harrison@Intel.com, Intel-GFX@Lists.FreeDesktop.Org
Subject: Re: [RFC 6/9] drm/i915: Delay the freeing of requests until retire time
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 15:25:14 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <55B0F94A.10901@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1437143483-6234-7-git-send-email-John.C.Harrison@Intel.com>
Hi,
On 07/17/2015 03:31 PM, John.C.Harrison@Intel.com wrote:
> From: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@Intel.com>
>
> The request structure is reference counted. When the count reached
> zero, the request was immediately freed and all associated objects
> were unrefereced/unallocated. This meant that the driver mutex lock
> must be held at the point where the count reaches zero. This was fine
> while all references were held internally to the driver. However, the
> plan is to allow the underlying fence object (and hence the request
> itself) to be returned to other drivers and to userland. External
> users cannot be expected to acquire a driver private mutex lock.
>
> Rather than attempt to disentangle the request structure from the
> driver mutex lock, the decsion was to defer the free code until a
> later (safer) point. Hence this patch changes the unreference callback
> to merely move the request onto a delayed free list. The driver's
> retire worker thread will then process the list and actually call the
> free function on the requests.
>
> [new patch in series]
>
> For: VIZ-5190
> Signed-off-by: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@Intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h | 22 +++---------------
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c | 41 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_display.c | 2 +-
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c | 2 ++
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c | 2 +-
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c | 2 ++
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.h | 4 ++++
> 7 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> index 88a4746..61c3db2 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> @@ -2161,14 +2161,9 @@ void i915_gem_track_fb(struct drm_i915_gem_object *old,
> * initial reference taken using kref_init
> */
> struct drm_i915_gem_request {
> - /**
> - * Underlying object for implementing the signal/wait stuff.
> - * NB: Never return this fence object to user land! It is unsafe to
> - * let anything outside of the i915 driver get hold of the fence
> - * object as the clean up when decrementing the reference count
> - * requires holding the driver mutex lock.
> - */
> + /** Underlying object for implementing the signal/wait stuff. */
> struct fence fence;
> + struct list_head delay_free_list;
Maybe call this delay_free_link to continue the established convention.
>
> /** On Which ring this request was generated */
> struct drm_i915_private *i915;
> @@ -2281,21 +2276,10 @@ i915_gem_request_reference(struct drm_i915_gem_request *req)
> static inline void
> i915_gem_request_unreference(struct drm_i915_gem_request *req)
> {
> - WARN_ON(!mutex_is_locked(&req->ring->dev->struct_mutex));
> - fence_put(&req->fence);
> -}
> -
> -static inline void
> -i915_gem_request_unreference__unlocked(struct drm_i915_gem_request *req)
> -{
> - struct drm_device *dev;
> -
> if (!req)
> return;
>
> - dev = req->ring->dev;
> - if (kref_put_mutex(&req->fence.refcount, fence_release, &dev->struct_mutex))
> - mutex_unlock(&dev->struct_mutex);
> + fence_put(&req->fence);
> }
>
> static inline void i915_gem_request_assign(struct drm_i915_gem_request **pdst,
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> index af79716..482835a 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> @@ -2616,10 +2616,27 @@ static void i915_set_reset_status(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> }
> }
>
> -static void i915_gem_request_free(struct fence *req_fence)
> +static void i915_gem_request_release(struct fence *req_fence)
> {
> struct drm_i915_gem_request *req = container_of(req_fence,
> typeof(*req), fence);
> + struct intel_engine_cs *ring = req->ring;
> + struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = to_i915(ring->dev);
> + unsigned long flags;
> +
> + /*
> + * Need to add the request to a deferred dereference list to be
> + * processed at a mutex lock safe time.
> + */
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&ring->delayed_free_lock, flags);
At the moment there is no request unreferencing from irq handlers right?
Unless (or until) you plan to add that you could use simple spin_lock
here. (And in the i915_gem_retire_requests_ring.)
> + list_add_tail(&req->delay_free_list, &ring->delayed_free_list);
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ring->delayed_free_lock, flags);
> +
> + queue_delayed_work(dev_priv->wq, &dev_priv->mm.retire_work, 0);
Have you decided to re-use the retire worker just for convenience of for
some other reason as well?
I found it a bit unexpected and though dedicated request free worker
would be cleaner, but I don't know, not a strong opinion.
> +}
> +
> +static void i915_gem_request_free(struct drm_i915_gem_request *req)
> +{
> struct intel_context *ctx = req->ctx;
>
> BUG_ON(!mutex_is_locked(&req->ring->dev->struct_mutex));
> @@ -2696,7 +2713,7 @@ static const struct fence_ops i915_gem_request_fops = {
> .enable_signaling = i915_gem_request_enable_signaling,
> .signaled = i915_gem_request_is_completed,
> .wait = fence_default_wait,
> - .release = i915_gem_request_free,
> + .release = i915_gem_request_release,
> .fence_value_str = i915_fence_value_str,
> .timeline_value_str = i915_fence_timeline_value_str,
> };
> @@ -2992,6 +3009,21 @@ i915_gem_retire_requests_ring(struct intel_engine_cs *ring)
> i915_gem_request_assign(&ring->trace_irq_req, NULL);
> }
>
> + while (!list_empty(&ring->delayed_free_list)) {
> + struct drm_i915_gem_request *request;
> + unsigned long flags;
> +
> + request = list_first_entry(&ring->delayed_free_list,
> + struct drm_i915_gem_request,
> + delay_free_list);
Need a spinlock to sample list head here. Then maybe move it on a
temporary list and do the freeing afterwards.
Regards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-07-23 14:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-07-17 14:31 [RFC 0/9] Convert requests to use struct fence John.C.Harrison
2015-07-17 14:31 ` [RFC 1/9] staging/android/sync: Support sync points created from dma-fences John.C.Harrison
2015-07-17 14:44 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2015-07-17 14:31 ` [RFC 2/9] android: add sync_fence_create_dma John.C.Harrison
2015-07-17 14:31 ` [RFC 3/9] drm/i915: Convert requests to use struct fence John.C.Harrison
2015-07-21 7:05 ` Daniel Vetter
2015-07-28 10:01 ` John Harrison
2015-07-22 14:26 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2015-07-28 10:10 ` John Harrison
2015-08-03 9:17 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2015-07-22 14:45 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2015-07-28 10:18 ` John Harrison
2015-08-03 9:18 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2015-07-17 14:31 ` [RFC 4/9] drm/i915: Removed now redudant parameter to i915_gem_request_completed() John.C.Harrison
2015-07-17 14:31 ` [RFC 5/9] drm/i915: Add per context timelines to fence object John.C.Harrison
2015-07-23 13:50 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2015-10-28 12:59 ` John Harrison
2015-11-17 13:54 ` Daniel Vetter
2015-07-17 14:31 ` [RFC 6/9] drm/i915: Delay the freeing of requests until retire time John.C.Harrison
2015-07-23 14:25 ` Tvrtko Ursulin [this message]
2015-10-28 13:00 ` John Harrison
2015-10-28 13:42 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2015-07-17 14:31 ` [RFC 7/9] drm/i915: Interrupt driven fences John.C.Harrison
2015-07-20 9:09 ` Maarten Lankhorst
2015-07-21 7:19 ` Daniel Vetter
2015-07-27 11:33 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2015-10-28 13:00 ` John Harrison
2015-07-27 13:20 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2015-07-27 14:00 ` Daniel Vetter
2015-08-03 9:20 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2015-08-05 8:05 ` Daniel Vetter
2015-08-05 11:05 ` Maarten Lankhorst
2015-07-17 14:31 ` [RFC 8/9] drm/i915: Updated request structure tracing John.C.Harrison
2015-07-17 14:31 ` [RFC 9/9] drm/i915: Add sync framework support to execbuff IOCTL John.C.Harrison
2015-07-27 13:00 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2015-10-28 13:01 ` John Harrison
2015-10-28 14:31 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2015-11-17 13:59 ` Daniel Vetter
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=55B0F94A.10901@linux.intel.com \
--to=tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com \
--cc=Intel-GFX@Lists.FreeDesktop.Org \
--cc=John.C.Harrison@Intel.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