On ke, 2016-09-14 at 07:52 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> @@ -315,17 +304,42 @@ submit_notify(struct i915_sw_fence *fence, enum
> i915_sw_fence_notify state)
> {
> struct drm_i915_gem_request *request =
> container_of(fence, typeof(*request), submit);
> + struct intel_timeline *timeline;
> + struct intel_engine_cs *engine = request->engine;
> + unsigned long flags;
> + u32 seqno;
>
> /* Will be called from irq-context when using foreign DMA fences */
>
> - switch (state) {
> - case FENCE_COMPLETE:
> - request->engine->submit_request(request);
> - break;
> + if (state != FENCE_COMPLETE)
> + return NOTIFY_DONE;
>
> - case FENCE_FREE:
> - break;
> - }
> + timeline = engine->timeline;
> + GEM_BUG_ON(timeline == request->timeline);
Umm, why this BUG_ON?
> +
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&timeline->lock, flags);
> +
> + seqno = timeline_get_seqno(&request->i915->gt.global_timeline);
> + GEM_BUG_ON(seqno == 0);
> +
> + request->previous_seqno = timeline->last_submitted_seqno;
> + timeline->last_submitted_seqno = seqno;
> +
> + spin_lock_nested(&request->lock, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
A comment might be in place for the nested locking.
> + request->global_seqno = seqno;
> + if (test_bit(FENCE_FLAG_ENABLE_SIGNAL_BIT, &request->fence.flags))
> + intel_engine_enable_signaling(request);
> + spin_unlock(&request->lock);
> +
> + engine->emit_request(request, request->ring->vaddr + request->postfix);
Is it just me or does this look very strange, let's "emit the request"
at "vaddr + request->postfix" offset. Makes no sense. Maybe reconsider
refreshing the vfunc name.
> +
> + spin_lock_nested(&request->timeline->lock, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
> + list_move_tail(&request->link, &timeline->requests);
> + spin_unlock(&request->timeline->lock);
> +
> + engine->submit_request(request);
> +
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&timeline->lock, flags);
>
> return NOTIFY_DONE;
> }
>
> @@ -685,12 +697,15 @@ void __i915_add_request(struct drm_i915_gem_request
> *request, bool flush_caches)
>
> i915_sw_fence_await_sw_fence(&request->submit, &prev->submit,
> &request->submitq, GFP_NOWAIT);
>
> - request->emitted_jiffies = jiffies;
> - request->previous_seqno = timeline->last_submitted_seqno;
> + spin_lock_irq(&timeline->lock);
> + list_add_tail(&request->link, &timeline->requests);
> + spin_unlock_irq(&timeline->lock);
> +
> timeline->last_submitted_seqno = request->fence.seqno;
> i915_gem_active_set(&timeline->last_request, request);
> - list_add_tail(&request->link, &timeline->requests);
> +
> list_add_tail(&request->ring_link, &ring->request_list);
> + request->emitted_jiffies = jiffies;
Is this assigment really worth delaying here?
Regards, Joonas
--
Joonas Lahtinen
Open Source Technology Center
Intel Corporation
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
