From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com>
To: Luben Tuikov <ltuikov89@gmail.com>
Cc: robdclark@chromium.org, sarah.walker@imgtec.com,
ltuikov@yahoo.com, ketil.johnsen@arm.com, lina@asahilina.net,
mcanal@igalia.com, Liviu.Dudau@arm.com,
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org,
boris.brezillon@collabora.com, dakr@redhat.com,
donald.robson@imgtec.com, christian.koenig@amd.com,
faith.ekstrand@collabora.com
Subject: Re: [Intel-xe] [PATCH] drm/sched: Eliminate drm_sched_run_job_queue_if_ready()
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2023 10:39:15 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <d2bf144f-e388-4cb1-bc18-12efad4f677b@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20231102224653.5785-2-ltuikov89@gmail.com>
On 02/11/2023 22:46, Luben Tuikov wrote:
> Eliminate drm_sched_run_job_queue_if_ready() and instead just call
> drm_sched_run_job_queue() in drm_sched_free_job_work(). The problem is that
> the former function uses drm_sched_select_entity() to determine if the
> scheduler had an entity ready in one of its run-queues, and in the case of the
> Round-Robin (RR) scheduling, the function drm_sched_rq_select_entity_rr() does
> just that, selects the _next_ entity which is ready, sets up the run-queue and
> completion and returns that entity. The FIFO scheduling algorithm is unaffected.
>
> Now, since drm_sched_run_job_work() also calls drm_sched_select_entity(), then
> in the case of RR scheduling, that would result in calling select_entity()
> twice, which may result in skipping a ready entity if more than one entity is
> ready. This commit fixes this by eliminating the if_ready() variant.
Fixes: is missing since the regression already landed.
>
> Signed-off-by: Luben Tuikov <ltuikov89@gmail.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c | 14 ++------------
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c
> index 98b2ad54fc7071..05816e7cae8c8b 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c
> @@ -1040,16 +1040,6 @@ drm_sched_pick_best(struct drm_gpu_scheduler **sched_list,
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_sched_pick_best);
>
> -/**
> - * drm_sched_run_job_queue_if_ready - enqueue run-job work if ready
> - * @sched: scheduler instance
> - */
> -static void drm_sched_run_job_queue_if_ready(struct drm_gpu_scheduler *sched)
> -{
> - if (drm_sched_select_entity(sched))
> - drm_sched_run_job_queue(sched);
> -}
> -
> /**
> * drm_sched_free_job_work - worker to call free_job
> *
> @@ -1069,7 +1059,7 @@ static void drm_sched_free_job_work(struct work_struct *w)
> sched->ops->free_job(cleanup_job);
>
> drm_sched_free_job_queue_if_done(sched);
> - drm_sched_run_job_queue_if_ready(sched);
> + drm_sched_run_job_queue(sched);
It works but is a bit wasteful causing needless CPU wake ups with a
potentially empty queue, both here and in drm_sched_run_job_work below.
What would be the problem in having a "peek" type helper? It would be
easy to do it in a single spin lock section instead of drop and re-acquire.
What is even the point of having the re-queue here _inside_ the if
(cleanup_job) block? See
https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/2023-November/429037.html.
Because of the lock drop and re-acquire I don't see that it makes sense
to make potential re-queue depend on the existence of current finished job.
Also the point of doing the re-queue of the run job queue from the free
worker?
(I suppose re-queuing the _free_ worker itself is needed in the current
design, albeit inefficient.)
Regards,
Tvrtko
> }
> }
>
> @@ -1127,7 +1117,7 @@ static void drm_sched_run_job_work(struct work_struct *w)
> }
>
> wake_up(&sched->job_scheduled);
> - drm_sched_run_job_queue_if_ready(sched);
> + drm_sched_run_job_queue(sched);
> }
>
> /**
>
> base-commit: 6fd9487147c4f18ad77eea00bd8c9189eec74a3e
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-11-03 10:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-10-31 3:24 [Intel-xe] [PATCH v8 0/5] DRM scheduler changes for Xe Matthew Brost
2023-10-31 3:24 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH v8 1/5] drm/sched: Add drm_sched_wqueue_* helpers Matthew Brost
2023-10-31 3:24 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH v8 2/5] drm/sched: Convert drm scheduler to use a work queue rather than kthread Matthew Brost
2023-10-31 3:24 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH v8 3/5] drm/sched: Split free_job into own work item Matthew Brost
2023-11-01 22:13 ` Luben Tuikov
2023-11-02 11:13 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2023-11-02 22:46 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH] drm/sched: Eliminate drm_sched_run_job_queue_if_ready() Luben Tuikov
2023-11-03 10:39 ` Tvrtko Ursulin [this message]
2023-11-04 0:25 ` Luben Tuikov
2023-11-06 12:54 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2023-11-03 15:13 ` Matthew Brost
2023-11-04 0:24 ` Luben Tuikov
2023-11-02 22:58 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH v8 3/5] drm/sched: Split free_job into own work item Luben Tuikov
2023-11-07 4:10 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH] drm/sched: Don't disturb the entity when in RR-mode scheduling Luben Tuikov
2023-11-07 11:48 ` Matthew Brost
2023-11-08 3:28 ` Luben Tuikov
2023-11-07 17:53 ` Danilo Krummrich
2023-11-08 3:29 ` Luben Tuikov
2023-11-08 0:41 ` Danilo Krummrich
2023-11-09 6:52 ` Luben Tuikov
2023-11-09 19:24 ` Danilo Krummrich
2023-11-09 23:41 ` Danilo Krummrich
2023-11-09 23:49 ` Luben Tuikov
2023-11-27 13:30 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH] Revert "drm/sched: Qualify drm_sched_wakeup() by drm_sched_entity_is_ready()" Bert Karwatzki
2023-11-27 15:14 ` Luben Tuikov
2023-10-31 3:24 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH v8 4/5] drm/sched: Add drm_sched_start_timeout_unlocked helper Matthew Brost
2023-10-31 3:24 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH v8 5/5] drm/sched: Add a helper to queue TDR immediately Matthew Brost
2023-10-31 3:31 ` [Intel-xe] ✗ CI.Patch_applied: failure for DRM scheduler changes for Xe (rev10) Patchwork
2023-11-01 22:16 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH v8 0/5] DRM scheduler changes for Xe Luben Tuikov
2023-11-02 22:49 ` [Intel-xe] ✗ CI.Patch_applied: failure for DRM scheduler changes for Xe (rev11) Patchwork
2023-11-07 4:39 ` [Intel-xe] ✗ CI.Patch_applied: failure for DRM scheduler changes for Xe (rev12) Patchwork
2023-11-09 7:12 ` [Intel-xe] ✗ CI.Patch_applied: failure for DRM scheduler changes for Xe (rev13) Patchwork
2023-11-27 16:18 ` [Intel-xe] ✗ CI.Patch_applied: failure for DRM scheduler changes for Xe (rev14) Patchwork
2023-11-27 17:15 ` Bert Karwatzki
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=d2bf144f-e388-4cb1-bc18-12efad4f677b@linux.intel.com \
--to=tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com \
--cc=Liviu.Dudau@arm.com \
--cc=boris.brezillon@collabora.com \
--cc=christian.koenig@amd.com \
--cc=dakr@redhat.com \
--cc=donald.robson@imgtec.com \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=faith.ekstrand@collabora.com \
--cc=intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=ketil.johnsen@arm.com \
--cc=lina@asahilina.net \
--cc=ltuikov89@gmail.com \
--cc=ltuikov@yahoo.com \
--cc=mcanal@igalia.com \
--cc=robdclark@chromium.org \
--cc=sarah.walker@imgtec.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