Re: [Nouveau] [PATCH 09/17] drm/radeon: use common fence implementation for fences

[Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@canonical.com>]

op 23-07-14 15:16, Maarten Lankhorst schreef:
> op 23-07-14 14:36, Christian König schreef:
>> Am 23.07.2014 12:52, schrieb Daniel Vetter:
>>> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Christian König
>>> <christian.koenig@amd.com> wrote:
>>>>> And the dma-buf would still have fences belonging to both drivers, and it
>>>>> would still call from outside the driver.
>>>> Calling from outside the driver is fine as long as the driver can do
>>>> everything necessary to complete it's work and isn't forced into any ugly
>>>> hacks and things that are not 100% reliable.
>>>>
>>>> So I don't see much other approach as integrating recovery code for not
>>>> firing interrupts and some kind of lockup handling into the fence code as
>>>> well.
>>> That approach doesn't really work at that well since every driver has
>>> it's own reset semantics. And we're trying to move away from global
>>> reset to fine-grained reset. So stop-the-world reset is out of
>>> fashion, at least for i915. As you said, reset is normal in gpus and
>>> we're trying to make reset less invasive. I really don't see a point
>>> in imposing a reset scheme upon all drivers and I think you have about
>>> as much motivation to convert radeon to the scheme used by i915 as
>>> I'll have for converting to the one used by radeon. If it would fit at
>>> all.
>> Oh my! No, I didn't wanted to suggest any global reset infrastructure.
>>
>> My idea was more that the fence framework provides a fence->process_signaling callback that is periodically called after enable_signaling is called to trigger manual signal processing in the driver.
>>
>> This would both be suitable as a fallback in case of not working interrupts as well as a chance for any driver to do necessary lockup handling.
> I managed to do it without needing it to be part of the interface? I'm not sure whether radeon_fence_driver_recheck needs exclusive_lock, but if so it's a small change..
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon.h
> index 7fbfd41479f1..51b646b9c8bb 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon.h
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon.h
> @@ -345,6 +345,9 @@ struct radeon_fence_driver {
>  	uint64_t			sync_seq[RADEON_NUM_RINGS];
>  	atomic64_t			last_seq;
>  	bool				initialized;
> +	struct delayed_work		work;
> +	struct radeon_device *rdev;
> +	unsigned ring;
>  };
>  
>  struct radeon_fence_cb {
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_fence.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_fence.c
> index da83f36dd708..955c825946ad 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_fence.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_fence.c
> @@ -231,6 +231,9 @@ static bool __radeon_fence_process(struct radeon_device *rdev, int ring)
>  		}
>  	} while (atomic64_xchg(&rdev->fence_drv[ring].last_seq, seq) > seq);
>  
> +	if (!wake && last_seq < last_emitted)
> +		schedule_delayed_work(&rdev->fence_drv[ring].work, jiffies_to_msecs(10));
> +
>
When trying this: if (seq < last_emitted) is probably a better check.

~Maarten