On ma, 2016-08-01 at 19:22 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> By applying the same logic as for wait-ioctl, we can query whether a
> request has completed without holding struct_mutex. The biggest impact
> system-wide is removing the flush_active and the contention that causes.
>
> Testcase: igt/gem_busy
> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <[email protected]>
> Cc: Akash Goel <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c | 110
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
> 1 file changed, 80 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> index 43069b05bdd2..f2f70f5ff9f4 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> @@ -3721,49 +3721,99 @@ i915_gem_object_ggtt_unpin_view(struct
> drm_i915_gem_object *obj,
> i915_vma_unpin(i915_gem_obj_to_ggtt_view(obj, view));
> }
>
> +static __always_inline unsigned
> +__busy_read_flag(const struct drm_i915_gem_request *request)
> +{
> + return 0x10000 << request->engine->exec_id;
> +}
> +
> +static __always_inline unsigned int
> +__busy_write_flag(const struct drm_i915_gem_request *request)
> +{
> + return request->engine->exec_id;
Just realized (to my horror) this is not a flag, it's a bare ID, so
better not call the function _flag, but rather _id?
> +}
> +
> +static __always_inline unsigned
> +__busy_flag(const struct i915_gem_active *active,
> + unsigned int (*flag)(const struct drm_i915_gem_request *))
> +{
> + struct drm_i915_gem_request *request;
> +
> + request = rcu_dereference(active->request);
> + if (!request || i915_gem_request_completed(request))
> + return 0;
> +
> + return flag(request);
> +}
> +
> +static inline unsigned
> +busy_read_flag(const struct i915_gem_active *active)
> +{
> + return __busy_flag(active, __busy_read_flag);
> +}
> +
> +static inline unsigned
> +busy_write_flag(const struct i915_gem_active *active)
> +{
> + return __busy_flag(active, __busy_write_flag);
> +}
> +
> int
> i915_gem_busy_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, void *data,
> struct drm_file *file)
> {
> struct drm_i915_gem_busy *args = data;
> struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj;
> - int ret;
> -
> - ret = i915_mutex_lock_interruptible(dev);
> - if (ret)
> - return ret;
> + unsigned long active;
>
> obj = i915_gem_object_lookup(file, args->handle);
> - if (!obj) {
> - ret = -ENOENT;
> - goto unlock;
> - }
> + if (!obj)
> + return -ENOENT;
>
> - /* Count all active objects as busy, even if they are currently not used
> - * by the gpu. Users of this interface expect objects to eventually
> - * become non-busy without any further actions.
> - */
> args->busy = 0;
> - if (i915_gem_object_is_active(obj)) {
> - struct drm_i915_gem_request *req;
> - int i;
> + active = __I915_BO_ACTIVE(obj);
> + if (active) {
> + int idx;
>
> - for (i = 0; i < I915_NUM_ENGINES; i++) {
> - req = i915_gem_active_peek(&obj->last_read[i],
> -
> &obj->base.dev->struct_mutex);
> - if (req)
> - args->busy |= 1 << (16 + req->engine->exec_id);
> - }
> - req = i915_gem_active_peek(&obj->last_write,
> - &obj->base.dev->struct_mutex);
> - if (req)
> - args->busy |= req->engine->exec_id;
> + /* Yes, the lookups are intentionally racy.
> + *
> + * Even though we guard the pointer lookup by RCU, that only
> + * guarantees that the pointer and its contents remain
> + * dereferencable and does *not* mean that the request we
> + * have is the same as the one being tracked by the object.
> + *
> + * Consider that we lookup the request just as it is being
> + * retired and free. We take a local copy of the pointer,
still s/free/freed/
> + * but before we add its engine into the busy set, the other
> + * thread reallocates it and assigns it to a task on another
> + * engine with a fresh and incomplete seqno.
> + *
> + * So after we lookup the engine's id, we double check that
> + * the active request is the same and only then do we add it
> + * into the busy set.
> + */
> + rcu_read_lock();
> +
> + for_each_active(active, idx)
> + args->busy |= busy_read_flag(&obj->last_read[idx]);
So you mean this is double check against __I915_BO_ACTIVE, right?
We're getting there, though. With above fixed;
Reviewed-by: Joonas Lahtinen <[email protected]>
--
Joonas Lahtinen
Open Source Technology Center
Intel Corporation
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
