Quoting Mika Kuoppala (2017-11-02 14:32:38)
> From: Mika Kuoppala <[email protected]>
>
> Instead of trusting that first available port is at index 0,
> use accessor to hide this. This is a preparation for a
> following patches where head can be at arbitrary location
> in the port array.
>
> v2: improved commit message, elsp_ready readability (Chris)
> v3: s/execlist_port_index/execlist_port (Chris)
> v4: rebase to new naming
> v5: fix port_next indexing
> v6: adapt to preempt
> v7: improved _port_next (Chris)
>
> Cc: Michał Winiarski <[email protected]>
> Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <[email protected]>
> Cc: Chris Wilson <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Mika Kuoppala <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gpu_error.c | 6 ++--
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_guc_submission.c | 50
> ++++++++++++++++++------------
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_engine_cs.c | 18 ++++++-----
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c | 49 ++++++++++++++++++-----------
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.h | 44 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> 5 files changed, 119 insertions(+), 48 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gpu_error.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gpu_error.c
> index 653fb69e7ecb..6d0bdb03b3f0 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gpu_error.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gpu_error.c
> @@ -1333,11 +1333,13 @@ static void engine_record_requests(struct
> intel_engine_cs *engine,
> static void error_record_engine_execlists(struct intel_engine_cs *engine,
> struct drm_i915_error_engine *ee)
> {
> - const struct intel_engine_execlists * const execlists =
> &engine->execlists;
> + struct intel_engine_execlists * const execlists = &engine->execlists;
> unsigned int n;
>
> for (n = 0; n < execlists_num_ports(execlists); n++) {
> - struct drm_i915_gem_request *rq =
> port_request(&execlists->port[n]);
> + struct drm_i915_gem_request *rq;
> +
> + rq = port_request(execlists_port(execlists, n));
>
This newline isn't as interesting as the others. No one will shed a tear
if it is removed.
> if (!rq)
> break;
> @@ -665,7 +670,8 @@ static void execlists_dequeue(struct intel_engine_cs
> *engine)
>
> if (submit)
> port_assign(port, last);
> - port++;
> +
> + port = execlists_port_next(execlists, port);
>
Spare us this newline as well. Let's have the advance and BUG() tightly
coupled.
> GEM_BUG_ON(port_isset(port));
> }
> @@ -699,8 +705,10 @@ static void execlists_dequeue(struct intel_engine_cs
> *engine)
> void
> execlists_cancel_port_requests(struct intel_engine_execlists * const
> execlists)
> {
> - struct execlist_port *port = execlists->port;
> unsigned int num_ports = execlists_num_ports(execlists);
> + struct execlist_port *port;
> +
> + port = execlists_port_head(execlists);
>
> while (num_ports-- && port_isset(port)) {
for (port = execlists_port_head(execlists);
num_ports-- && port_isset(port);
port = execlists_head_complete(execlists, port)) {
Might as well complete the transformation to more normal code ;)
> +static inline struct execlist_port *
> +execlists_head_complete(struct intel_engine_execlists * const execlists,
> struct execlist_port * const port)
> {
> const unsigned int m = execlists->port_mask;
> @@ -580,6 +618,8 @@ execlists_port_complete(struct intel_engine_execlists *
> const execlists,
>
> memmove(port, port + 1, m * sizeof(struct execlist_port));
> memset(port + m, 0, sizeof(struct execlist_port));
> +
> + return execlists_port_head(execlists);
Hang on a sec, isn't port->head itself meant to advance here? Oh,
that'll be the next patch and this is just prep.
Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <[email protected]>
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
