Chris Wilson <[email protected]> writes:
> When cancelling the requests and clearing out the ports following a
> successful preemption completion, also clear the active flag. I had
> assumed that all preemptions would be followed by an immediate dequeue
> (preserving the active user flag), but under rare circumstances we may
> be triggering a preemption for the second port only for it to have
> completed before the preemotion kicks in; leaving execlists->active set
> even though the system is now idle.
>
> We can clear the flag inside the common execlists_cancel_port_requests()
> as the other users also expect the semantics of active being cleared.
>
> Fixes: f6322eddaff7 ("drm/i915/preemption: Allow preemption between
> submission ports")
> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <[email protected]>
> Cc: Michał Winiarski <[email protected]>
> Cc: Michel Thierry <[email protected]>
> Cc: Mika Kuoppala <[email protected]>
> Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c | 9 +++++++++
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c
> index 08d8ac9d1f8f..f9edfe4540e2 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c
> @@ -577,6 +577,8 @@ static void execlists_dequeue(struct intel_engine_cs
> *engine)
> * know the next preemption status we see corresponds
> * to this ELSP update.
> */
> + GEM_BUG_ON(!execlists_is_active(execlists,
> + EXECLISTS_ACTIVE_USER));
We have a similar type of check in function exit.
But that would trigger only if we are lite restoring to port[0].
So more coverage with this and being explicit...
> GEM_BUG_ON(!port_count(&port[0]));
> if (port_count(&port[0]) > 1)
> goto unlock;
> @@ -738,6 +740,8 @@ execlists_cancel_port_requests(struct
> intel_engine_execlists * const execlists)
> memset(port, 0, sizeof(*port));
> port++;
> }
> +
> + execlists_clear_active(execlists, EXECLISTS_ACTIVE_USER);
> }
>
> static void clear_gtiir(struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
> @@ -1042,6 +1046,11 @@ static void execlists_submission_tasklet(unsigned long
> data)
>
> if (fw)
> intel_uncore_forcewake_put(dev_priv, execlists->fw_domains);
> +
> + /* If the engine is now idle, so should be the flag; and vice versa. */
> + GEM_BUG_ON(execlists_is_active(&engine->execlists,
> + EXECLISTS_ACTIVE_USER) ==
> + !port_isset(engine->execlists.port));
But this here looks like we could get rid of the
GEM_BUG_ON(port_isset(execlists->port) &&
!execlists_is_active(execlists, EXECLISTS_ACTIVE_USER));
on end of dequeue and trust this master check you added here.
-Mika
> }
>
> static void queue_request(struct intel_engine_cs *engine,
> --
> 2.16.3
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
