On ma, 2016-08-01 at 19:22 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> We can now wait for the GPU (all engines) to become idle without
> requiring the struct_mutex. Inside the shrinker, we need to currently
> take the struct_mutex in order to purge objects and to purge the objects
> we need the GPU to be idle - causing a stall whilst we hold the
> struct_mutex. We can hide most of that stall by performing the wait
> before taking the struct_mutex and only doing essential waits for
> new rendering on objects to be freed.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_shrinker.c | 5 +++++
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_shrinker.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_shrinker.c
> index 1341cb55b6f1..43e53e419982 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_shrinker.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_shrinker.c
> @@ -326,9 +326,14 @@ i915_gem_shrinker_lock_uninterruptible(struct
> drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> unsigned long timeout = msecs_to_jiffies(timeout_ms) + 1;
>
> while (!i915_gem_shrinker_lock(&dev_priv->drm, &slu->unlock)) {
> + if (i915_gem_wait_for_idle(dev_priv) == 0 &&
continue would be much cleaner here, to avoid repeating the lock
calling line? Or how likely is it for engines to be idle but
struct_mutex held for extended period?
Regards, Joonas
> + i915_gem_shrinker_lock(&dev_priv->drm, &slu->unlock))
> + break;
> +
> schedule_timeout_killable(1);
> if (fatal_signal_pending(current))
> return false;
> +
> if (--timeout == 0) {
> pr_err("Unable to lock GPU to purge memory.\n");
> return false;
--
Joonas Lahtinen
Open Source Technology Center
Intel Corporation
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
