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 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 smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 75553C433FE for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 15:52:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 275BE10E2C2; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 15:51:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mga17.intel.com (mga17.intel.com [192.55.52.151]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B40F510E2C2 for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 15:51:54 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1666367514; x=1697903514; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=uEdCVzsfqe7HpIH1xBKIi9T0ciBbjrJB/GmUgdr74g0=; b=TO/Zei6OXpwTzBs4yp5woro8t8WdvrInospXJ2CA5Jr36rOE3C9ZCsnN pGTRhQP5S1Z69Gm9GpTWOl3kNNSv8RkRyCxARw8vx1yGVOi0/i1Ad+ppp Sk8riFB8JOtf1DGkeq4A1VyOmuyjsUwWskFMuYYtduk87o+7Wpx3Pd4t/ foOM52D0ulBEDbNHB13jFariV1UOvUjEWslJl3BVwcLKJho1ja58YFKWq vjV3GObrlZiSbpneXQY7HorjPJh+HiETxwfuxKA4PhqOpo53+6XlAg/WU Fae6CRzyGkUseMajkn4IBwLixYj1XPsj6HBV2UAzRU2quowSp70M09izz g==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6500,9779,10507"; a="287436015" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.95,202,1661842800"; d="scan'208";a="287436015" Received: from orsmga008.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.65]) by fmsmga107.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 21 Oct 2022 08:51:47 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6500,9779,10507"; a="661655422" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.95,202,1661842800"; d="scan'208";a="661655422" Received: from apierro-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO intel.com) ([10.249.37.148]) by orsmga008-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 21 Oct 2022 08:51:44 -0700 Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2022 17:51:42 +0200 From: Andi Shyti To: Andrzej Hajda Message-ID: References: <20221013133001.3639326-1-andrzej.hajda@intel.com> <20221013133001.3639326-2-andrzej.hajda@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20221013133001.3639326-2-andrzej.hajda@intel.com> Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915: add wait and lock to i915_vma_move_to_active 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: , Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, Lucas De Marchi , Matthew Auld , Rodrigo Vivi Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Sender: "Intel-gfx" Hi Andrzej, (at first I r-b'ed this patch, but then I wanted to think on some more "simplification" (if it really simplifies things). Please read the review in patch 2 first ) > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/selftests/i915_gem_mman.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/selftests/i915_gem_mman.c > index 1cae24349a96fd..80e7fdd5d16427 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/selftests/i915_gem_mman.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/selftests/i915_gem_mman.c > @@ -565,10 +565,8 @@ static int make_obj_busy(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj) > goto err_unpin; > } > > - err = i915_request_await_object(rq, vma->obj, true); > - if (err == 0) > - err = i915_vma_move_to_active(vma, rq, > - EXEC_OBJECT_WRITE); > + err = i915_vma_move_to_active(vma, rq, > + EXEC_OBJECT_WRITE); nit: don't need to break the line here. > > i915_request_add(rq); > err_unpin: [...] > @@ -860,9 +854,7 @@ static int read_whitelisted_registers(struct intel_context *ce, > return PTR_ERR(rq); > > i915_vma_lock(results); > - err = i915_request_await_object(rq, results->obj, true); > - if (err == 0) > - err = i915_vma_move_to_active(results, rq, EXEC_OBJECT_WRITE); > + err = i915_vma_move_to_active(results, rq, EXEC_OBJECT_WRITE); > i915_vma_unlock(results); > if (err) > goto err_req; > @@ -944,9 +936,7 @@ static int scrub_whitelisted_registers(struct intel_context *ce) > } > > i915_vma_lock(batch); > - err = i915_request_await_object(rq, batch->obj, false); > - if (err == 0) > - err = i915_vma_move_to_active(batch, rq, 0); > + err = i915_vma_move_to_active(batch, rq, 0); > i915_vma_unlock(batch); The final risult would be: i915_vma_lock(); i915_vma_move_to_active() i915_vma_unlock(); and it's a pattern... as I suggested in patch 2, how about having an: i915_vma_move_to_active_unlocked() and... > if (err) > goto err_request; > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/scheduler.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/scheduler.c > index d6fe94cd0fdb61..b49098f045005e 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/scheduler.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/scheduler.c > @@ -570,9 +570,8 @@ static int prepare_shadow_batch_buffer(struct intel_vgpu_workload *workload) > if (gmadr_bytes == 8) > bb->bb_start_cmd_va[2] = 0; > > - ret = i915_vma_move_to_active(bb->vma, > - workload->req, > - 0); > + ret = _i915_vma_move_to_active(bb->vma, workload->req, > + &workload->req->fence, 0); > if (ret) > goto err; > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_perf.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_perf.c > index 15816df916c781..19138e99d2fd03 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_perf.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_perf.c > @@ -2015,9 +2015,7 @@ emit_oa_config(struct i915_perf_stream *stream, > goto err_add_request; > } > > - err = i915_request_await_object(rq, vma->obj, 0); > - if (!err) > - err = i915_vma_move_to_active(vma, rq, 0); > + err = i915_vma_move_to_active(vma, rq, 0); > if (err) > goto err_add_request; > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_vma.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_vma.h > index aecd9c64486b27..47ac5bd1ffcce6 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_vma.h > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_vma.h > @@ -64,7 +64,11 @@ static inline int __must_check > i915_vma_move_to_active(struct i915_vma *vma, struct i915_request *rq, > unsigned int flags) > { > - return _i915_vma_move_to_active(vma, rq, &rq->fence, flags); > + int err = i915_request_await_object(rq, vma->obj, flags & EXEC_OBJECT_WRITE); > + > + if (!err) > + err = _i915_vma_move_to_active(vma, rq, &rq->fence, flags); > + return err; > } ... this i915_vma_move_to_active() now it's doing more than just moving to active but it's also waiting on dma fences, shall we call it i915_vma_move_to_active_async() or silimar? (I'm not good at giving names). The above would be i915_vma_move_to_active_async_unlocked(). Too long? More complex? We would have something like: i915_vma_move_to_active() /* not used */ i915_vma_move_to_active_unlocked() i915_vma_move_to_active_async() i915_vma_move_to_active_async_unlocked() Anyway as it is looks good, I didn't spot any error in the conversion: Reviewed-by: Andi Shyti Andi [...]