On 27/10/2021 21:10, Matthew Brost wrote:
On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 01:04:49PM -0700, John Harrison wrote:
On 10/27/2021 12:17, Matthew Brost wrote:
On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 02:58:00PM -0700, John Harrison wrote:
On 10/20/2021 14:47, Matthew Brost wrote:
A weak implementation of parallel submission (multi-bb execbuf IOCTL) for execlists. Doing as little as possible to support this interface for execlists - basically just passing submit fences between each request generated and virtual engines are not allowed. This is on par with what is there for the existing (hopefully soon deprecated) bonding interface.
We perma-pin these execlists contexts to align with GuC implementation.
v2: (John Harrison) - Drop siblings array as num_siblings must be 1
Signed-off-by: Matthew Brost matthew.brost@intel.com
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_context.c | 10 +++-- drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_context.c | 4 +- .../drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c | 44 ++++++++++++++++++- drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_lrc.c | 2 + .../gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c | 2 - 5 files changed, 52 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_context.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_context.c index fb33d0322960..35e87a7d0ea9 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_context.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_context.c @@ -570,10 +570,6 @@ set_proto_ctx_engines_parallel_submit(struct i915_user_extension __user *base, struct intel_engine_cs **siblings = NULL; intel_engine_mask_t prev_mask;
- /* FIXME: This is NIY for execlists */
- if (!(intel_uc_uses_guc_submission(&i915->gt.uc)))
return -ENODEV;if (get_user(slot, &ext->engine_index)) return -EFAULT;@@ -583,6 +579,12 @@ set_proto_ctx_engines_parallel_submit(struct i915_user_extension __user *base, if (get_user(num_siblings, &ext->num_siblings)) return -EFAULT;
- if (!intel_uc_uses_guc_submission(&i915->gt.uc) && num_siblings != 1) {
drm_dbg(&i915->drm, "Only 1 sibling (%d) supported in non-GuC mode\n",num_siblings);return -EINVAL;- }
if (slot >= set->num_engines) { drm_dbg(&i915->drm, "Invalid placement value, %d >= %d\n", slot, set->num_engines);diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_context.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_context.c index 5634d14052bc..1bec92e1d8e6 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_context.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_context.c @@ -79,7 +79,8 @@ static int intel_context_active_acquire(struct intel_context *ce) __i915_active_acquire(&ce->active);
- if (intel_context_is_barrier(ce) || intel_engine_uses_guc(ce->engine))
- if (intel_context_is_barrier(ce) || intel_engine_uses_guc(ce->engine) ||
intel_context_is_parallel(ce)) return 0; /* Preallocate tracking nodes */@@ -563,7 +564,6 @@ void intel_context_bind_parent_child(struct intel_context *parent, * Callers responsibility to validate that this function is used * correctly but we use GEM_BUG_ON here ensure that they do. */
- GEM_BUG_ON(!intel_engine_uses_guc(parent->engine)); GEM_BUG_ON(intel_context_is_pinned(parent)); GEM_BUG_ON(intel_context_is_child(parent)); GEM_BUG_ON(intel_context_is_pinned(child));
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c index bedb80057046..2865b422300d 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c @@ -927,8 +927,7 @@ static void execlists_submit_ports(struct intel_engine_cs *engine) static bool ctx_single_port_submission(const struct intel_context *ce) {
- return (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DRM_I915_GVT) &&
intel_context_force_single_submission(ce));
- return intel_context_force_single_submission(ce);
I think this is actually going to break GVT.
Not so much this change here but the whole use of single submission outside of GVT. It looks like the GVT driver overloads the single submission flag to tag requests that it owns. If we start using that flag elsewhere when GVT is active, I think that will cause much confusion within the GVT code.
The correct fix would be to create a new flag just for GVT usage alongside the single submission one. GVT would then set both but only check for its own private flag. The parallel code would obviously only set the existing single submission flag.
Ok, see below.
} static bool can_merge_ctx(const struct intel_context *prev,@@ -2598,6 +2597,46 @@ static void execlists_context_cancel_request(struct intel_context *ce, current->comm); } +static struct intel_context * +execlists_create_parallel(struct intel_engine_cs **engines,
unsigned int num_siblings,unsigned int width)+{
- struct intel_context *parent = NULL, *ce, *err;
- int i;
- GEM_BUG_ON(num_siblings != 1);
- for (i = 0; i < width; ++i) {
ce = intel_context_create(engines[i]);if (!ce) {err = ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);goto unwind;}if (i == 0)parent = ce;elseintel_context_bind_parent_child(parent, ce);- }
- parent->parallel.fence_context = dma_fence_context_alloc(1);
- intel_context_set_nopreempt(parent);
- intel_context_set_single_submission(parent);
Can you explain the need for setting single submission?
I think I can actually pull this out. This was needed when I tried to truely implement a guarante that all the parallel requests would be running simultaneously. Couldn't ever to get that working because of the mess that is the execlists scheduler - a simple wait at the head of queue until everyone joined just blew up for whatever reason. I don't believe this servers a purpose anymore, so I'll just drop it.
Matt
Is that not going to be a problem? I thought concurrent execution was a fundamental requirement?
I don't think so. See the commit message. This implmementation is on par with the bonding interface - there is no guarantee whatsoever that with the bonding interface bonded requests actually run at the same time. It says hopefully these submissions run together. That's what I do in this patch too for execlists, hence the 'weak' clause in the commit message.
With the new uapi definition implying a stricter guarantee - why not have this patch use special bb semaphore pre/post-ambles so scheduling behaviour is closer between the two backends?
Regards,
Tvrtko
Matt
John.
John.
- for_each_child(parent, ce) {
intel_context_set_nopreempt(ce);intel_context_set_single_submission(ce);- }
- return parent;
+unwind:
- if (parent)
intel_context_put(parent);- return err;
+}
- static const struct intel_context_ops execlists_context_ops = { .flags = COPS_HAS_INFLIGHT,
@@ -2616,6 +2655,7 @@ static const struct intel_context_ops execlists_context_ops = { .reset = lrc_reset, .destroy = lrc_destroy,
- .create_parallel = execlists_create_parallel, .create_virtual = execlists_create_virtual, };
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_lrc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_lrc.c index 56156cf18c41..70f4b309522d 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_lrc.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_lrc.c @@ -1065,6 +1065,8 @@ lrc_pin(struct intel_context *ce, void lrc_unpin(struct intel_context *ce) {
- if (unlikely(ce->parallel.last_rq))
i915_request_put(ce->parallel.last_rq); check_redzone((void *)ce->lrc_reg_state - LRC_STATE_OFFSET, ce->engine);diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c index 1341752dc70e..ddc9a97fcc8f 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_guc_submission.c @@ -2961,8 +2961,6 @@ static void guc_parent_context_unpin(struct intel_context *ce) GEM_BUG_ON(!intel_context_is_parent(ce)); GEM_BUG_ON(!intel_engine_is_virtual(ce->engine));
- if (ce->parallel.last_rq)
i915_request_put(ce->parallel.last_rq); unpin_guc_id(guc, ce); lrc_unpin(ce);