From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,HK_RANDOM_FROM,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEF38C56201 for ; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 09:15:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (gabe.freedesktop.org [131.252.210.177]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0CD32206F7 for ; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 09:15:32 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 0CD32206F7 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C62A6E838; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 09:15:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 918D96E838 for ; Wed, 25 Nov 2020 09:15:30 +0000 (UTC) IronPort-SDR: lcK/UHuRHqVUJjxkle4fZ/ETHUVrLRvtkmbYbZxRbViFecFK55FnRTctBcg6dg8UTvt08SEQP+ 5EirltBPNAcg== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6000,8403,9815"; a="159140791" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.78,368,1599548400"; d="scan'208";a="159140791" X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga005.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.41]) by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 25 Nov 2020 01:15:29 -0800 IronPort-SDR: PKJyvonDVGM3fiJPuv1BlMhH7lO8xLkB7dyFblbjcJvlW1o5GNciivueSZ8s4rxKDyJmytnYox DCAbt8PXxEHQ== X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.78,368,1599548400"; d="scan'208";a="547197084" Received: from jhaitov-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.214.246.84]) ([10.214.246.84]) by orsmga005-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 25 Nov 2020 01:15:28 -0800 To: Chris Wilson , intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org References: <20201124114219.29020-1-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> <20201124114219.29020-6-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> <160623911107.28476.5808928666560182985@build.alporthouse.com> From: Tvrtko Ursulin Organization: Intel Corporation UK Plc Message-ID: <72bf7c0b-b55a-042e-06df-8992fd630be0@linux.intel.com> Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2020 09:15:25 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <160623911107.28476.5808928666560182985@build.alporthouse.com> Content-Language: en-US Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 06/16] drm/i915/gt: Decouple completed requests on unwind X-BeenThere: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Intel graphics driver community testing & development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Sender: "Intel-gfx" On 24/11/2020 17:31, Chris Wilson wrote: > Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2020-11-24 17:13:02) >> >> On 24/11/2020 11:42, Chris Wilson wrote: >>> Since the introduction of preempt-to-busy, requests can complete in the >>> background, even while they are not on the engine->active.requests list. >>> As such, the engine->active.request list itself is not in strict >>> retirement order, and we have to scan the entire list while unwinding to >>> not miss any. However, if the request is completed we currently leave it >>> on the list [until retirement], but we could just as simply remove it >>> and stop treating it as active. We would only have to then traverse it >>> once while unwinding in quick succession. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson >>> --- >>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_lrc.c | 6 ++++-- >>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c | 3 ++- >>> 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_lrc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_lrc.c >>> index 30aa59fb7271..cf11cbac241b 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_lrc.c >>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_lrc.c >>> @@ -1116,8 +1116,10 @@ __unwind_incomplete_requests(struct intel_engine_cs *engine) >>> list_for_each_entry_safe_reverse(rq, rn, >>> &engine->active.requests, >>> sched.link) { >>> - if (i915_request_completed(rq)) >>> - continue; /* XXX */ >>> + if (i915_request_completed(rq)) { >>> + list_del_init(&rq->sched.link); >>> + continue; >>> + } >>> >>> __i915_request_unsubmit(rq); >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c >>> index 8d7d29c9e375..a9db1376b996 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c >>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c >>> @@ -321,7 +321,8 @@ bool i915_request_retire(struct i915_request *rq) >>> * after removing the breadcrumb and signaling it, so that we do not >>> * inadvertently attach the breadcrumb to a completed request. >>> */ >>> - remove_from_engine(rq); >>> + if (!list_empty(&rq->sched.link)) >>> + remove_from_engine(rq); >> >> The list_empty check is unlocked so is list_del_init in >> remove_from_engine safe on potentially already unlinked request or it >> needs to re-check under the lock? > > It's safe. The unwind is under the lock, and remove_from_engine takes > the lock, and both do list_del_init() which is a no-op if already > removed. And the end state of the flag bits is the same on each path. We > can skip the __notify_execute_cb_imm() since we know in unwind it is > executing and there should be no cb. > > The test before we take the lock is only allowed to skip the active.lock > if it sees the list is already decoupled, in which case we can leave it > to the unwind to remove it from the engine (and we know that the request > can only have been inflight prior to completion). Since the test is not > locked, we don't serialise with the removal, but the list_del_init is > the last action on the request so there is no window where the unwind is > accessing the request after it may have been retired. > > list_move() will not confuse list_empty(), as although it does a > list_del_entry, it is not temporarily re-initialised to an empty list. List_del_init is indeed safe. List_move.. which one you think can race with retire? Preempt-to-busy unwinding an almost completed request yet again? Or even preempt timeout racing with completion? Regards, Tvrtko _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx