v2: Warn and return if LRCs are not enabled.
v3: Grab the Execlists spinlock (noticed by Daniel Vetter).
Signed-off-by: Oscar Mateo <oscar.mateo@intel.com>
v4: Lock the struct mutex for atomic state capture
Signed-off-by: Thomas Daniel <thomas.daniel@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Damien Lespiau <damien.lespiau@intel.com>
[danvet: Checkpatch.]
Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
In the current Execlists feeding mechanism, full preemption is not
supported yet: only lite-restores are allowed (this is: the GPU
simply samples a new tail pointer for the context currently in
execution).
But we have identified an scenario in which a full preemption occurs:
1) We submit two contexts for execution (A & B).
2) The GPU finishes with the first one (A), switches to the second one
(B) and informs us.
3) We submit B again (hoping to cause a lite restore) together with C,
but in the time we spend writing to the ELSP, the GPU finishes B.
4) The GPU start executing B again (since we told it so).
5) We receive a B finished interrupt and, mistakenly, we submit C (again)
and D, causing a full preemption of B.
The race is avoided by keeping track of how many times a context has been
submitted to the hardware and by better discriminating the received context
switch interrupts: in the example, when we have submitted B twice, we won´t
submit C and D as soon as we receive the notification that B is completed
because we were expecting to get a LITE_RESTORE and we didn´t, so we know a
second completion will be received shortly.
Without this explicit checking, somehow, the batch buffer execution order
gets messed with. This can be verified with the IGT test I sent together with
the series. I don´t know the exact mechanism by which the pre-emption messes
with the execution order but, since other people is working on the Scheduler
+ Preemption on Execlists, I didn´t try to fix it. In these series, only Lite
Restores are supported (other kind of preemptions WARN).
v2: elsp_submitted belongs in the new intel_ctx_submit_request. Several
rebase changes.
v3: Clarify how the race is avoided, as requested by Daniel.
Signed-off-by: Oscar Mateo <oscar.mateo@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Damien Lespiau <damien.lespiau@intel.com>
[danvet: Align function parameters ...]
Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
Handle all context status events in the context status buffer on every
context switch interrupt. We only remove work from the execlist queue
after a context status buffer reports that it has completed and we only
attempt to schedule new contexts on interrupt when a previously submitted
context completes (unless no contexts are queued, which means the GPU is
free).
We canot call intel_runtime_pm_get() in an interrupt (or with a spinlock
grabbed, FWIW), because it might sleep, which is not a nice thing to do.
Instead, do the runtime_pm get/put together with the create/destroy request,
and handle the forcewake get/put directly.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Daniel <thomas.daniel@intel.com>
v2: Unreferencing the context when we are freeing the request might free
the backing bo, which requires the struct_mutex to be grabbed, so defer
unreferencing and freeing to a bottom half.
v3:
- Ack the interrupt inmediately, before trying to handle it (fix for
missing interrupts by Bob Beckett <robert.beckett@intel.com>).
- Update the Context Status Buffer Read Pointer, just in case (spotted
by Damien Lespiau).
v4: New namespace and multiple rebase changes.
v5: Squash with "drm/i915/bdw: Do not call intel_runtime_pm_get() in an
interrupt", as suggested by Daniel.
Signed-off-by: Oscar Mateo <oscar.mateo@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Damien Lespiau <damien.lespiau@intel.com>
[danvet: Checkpatch ...]
Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
Context switch (and execlist submission) should happen only when
other contexts are not active, otherwise pre-emption occurs.
To assure this, we place context switch requests in a queue and those
request are later consumed when the right context switch interrupt is
received (still TODO).
v2: Use a spinlock, do not remove the requests on unqueue (wait for
context switch completion).
Signed-off-by: Thomas Daniel <thomas.daniel@intel.com>
v3: Several rebases and code changes. Use unique ID.
v4:
- Move the queue/lock init to the late ring initialization.
- Damien's kmalloc review comments: check return, use sizeof(*req),
do not cast.
v5:
- Do not reuse drm_i915_gem_request. Instead, create our own.
- New namespace.
Signed-off-by: Michel Thierry <michel.thierry@intel.com> (v1)
Signed-off-by: Oscar Mateo <oscar.mateo@intel.com> (v2-v5)
Reviewed-by: Damien Lespiau <damien.lespiau@intel.com>
[davnet: Checkpatch + wash-up s/BUG_ON/WARN_ON/.]
Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
A context switch occurs by submitting a context descriptor to the
ExecList Submission Port. Given that we can now initialize a context,
it's possible to begin implementing the context switch by creating the
descriptor and submitting it to ELSP (actually two, since the ELSP
has two ports).
The context object must be mapped in the GGTT, which means it must exist
in the 0-4GB graphics VA range.
Signed-off-by: Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net>
v2: This code has changed quite a lot in various rebases. Of particular
importance is that now we use the globally unique Submission ID to send
to the hardware. Also, context pages are now pinned unconditionally to
GGTT, so there is no need to bind them.
v3: Use LRCA[31:12] as hwCtxId[19:0]. This guarantees that the HW context
ID we submit to the ELSP is globally unique and != 0 (Bspec requirements
of the software use-only bits of the Context ID in the Context Descriptor
Format) without the hassle of the previous submission Id construction.
Also, re-add the ELSP porting read (it was dropped somewhere during the
rebases).
v4:
- Squash with "drm/i915/bdw: Add forcewake lock around ELSP writes" (BSPEC
says: "SW must set Force Wakeup bit to prevent GT from entering C6 while
ELSP writes are in progress") as noted by Thomas Daniel
(thomas.daniel@intel.com).
- Rename functions and use an execlists/intel_execlists_ namespace.
- The BUG_ON only checked that the LRCA was <32 bits, but it didn't make
sure that it was properly aligned. Spotted by Alistair Mcaulay
<alistair.mcaulay@intel.com>.
v5:
- Improved source code comments as suggested by Chris Wilson.
- No need to abstract submit_ctx away, as pointed by Brad Volkin.
Signed-off-by: Oscar Mateo <oscar.mateo@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Damien Lespiau <damien.lespiau@intel.com>
[danvet: Checkpatch. Sigh.]
Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
On a previous iteration of this patch, I created an Execlists
version of __i915_add_request and asbtracted it away as a
vfunc. Daniel Vetter wondered then why that was needed:
"with the clean split in command submission I expect every
function to know wether it'll submit to an lrc (everything in
intel_lrc.c) or wether it'll submit to a legacy ring (existing
code), so I don't see a need for an add_request vfunc."
The honest, hairy truth is that this patch is the glue keeping
the whole logical ring puzzle together:
- i915_add_request is used by intel_ring_idle, which in turn is
used by i915_gpu_idle, which in turn is used in several places
inside the eviction and gtt codes.
- Also, it is used by i915_gem_check_olr, which is littered all
over i915_gem.c
- ...
If I were to duplicate all the code that directly or indirectly
uses __i915_add_request, I'll end up creating a separate driver.
To show the differences between the existing legacy version and
the new Execlists one, this time I have special-cased
__i915_add_request instead of adding an add_request vfunc. I
hope this helps to untangle this Gordian knot.
Signed-off-by: Oscar Mateo <oscar.mateo@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Damien Lespiau <damien.lespiau@intel.com>
[danvet: Adjust to ringbuf->FIXME_lrc_ctx per the discussion with
Thomas Daniel.]
Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
Well, new-ish: if all this code looks familiar, that's because it's
a clone of the existing submission mechanism (with some modifications
here and there to adapt it to LRCs and Execlists).
And why did we do this instead of reusing code, one might wonder?
Well, there are some fears that the differences are big enough that
they will end up breaking all platforms.
Also, Execlists offer several advantages, like control over when the
GPU is done with a given workload, that can help simplify the
submission mechanism, no doubt. I am interested in getting Execlists
to work first and foremost, but in the future this parallel submission
mechanism will help us to fine tune the mechanism without affecting
old gens.
v2: Pass the ringbuffer only (whenever possible).
Signed-off-by: Oscar Mateo <oscar.mateo@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Damien Lespiau <damien.lespiau@intel.com>
[danvet: Appease checkpatch. Again. And drop the legacy sarea gunk
that somehow crept in.]
Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
Execlists are indeed a brave new world with respect to workload
submission to the GPU.
In previous version of these series, I have tried to impact the
legacy ringbuffer submission path as little as possible (mostly,
passing the context around and using the correct ringbuffer when I
needed one) but Daniel is afraid (probably with a reason) that
these changes and, especially, future ones, will end up breaking
older gens.
This commit and some others coming next will try to limit the
damage by creating an alternative path for workload submission.
The first step is here: laying out a new ring init/fini.
Signed-off-by: Oscar Mateo <oscar.mateo@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Damien Lespiau <damien.lespiau@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
For the moment this is just a placeholder, but it shows one of the
main differences between the good ol' HW contexts and the shiny
new Logical Ring Contexts: LR contexts allocate and free their
own backing objects. Another difference is that the allocation is
deferred (as the create function name suggests), but that does not
happen in this patch yet, because for the moment we are only dealing
with the default context.
Early in the series we had our own gen8_gem_context_init/fini
functions, but the truth is they now look almost the same as the
legacy hw context init/fini functions. We can always split them
later if this ceases to be the case.
Also, we do not fall back to legacy ringbuffers when logical ring
context initialization fails (not very likely to happen and, even
if it does, hw contexts would probably fail as well).
v2: Daniel says "explain, do not showcase".
Signed-off-by: Oscar Mateo <oscar.mateo@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Damien Lespiau <damien.lespiau@intel.com>
[danvet: s/BUG_ON/WARN_ON/.]
Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
GEN8 brings an expansion of the HW contexts: "Logical Ring Contexts".
These expanded contexts enable a number of new abilities, especially
"Execlists".
The macro is defined to off until we have things in place to hope to
work.
v2: Rename "advanced contexts" to the more correct "logical ring
contexts".
v3: Add a module parameter to enable execlists. Execlist are relatively
new, and so it'd be wise to be able to switch back to ring submission
to debug subtle problems that will inevitably arise.
v4: Add an intel_enable_execlists function.
v5: Sanitize early, as suggested by Daniel. Remove lrc_enabled.
Signed-off-by: Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net> (v1)
Signed-off-by: Damien Lespiau <damien.lespiau@intel.com> (v3)
Signed-off-by: Oscar Mateo <oscar.mateo@intel.com> (v2, v4 & v5)
Reviewed-by: Damien Lespiau <damien.lespiau@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
Some legacy HW context code assumptions don't make sense for this new
submission method, so we will place this stuff in a separate file.
Note for reviewers: I've carefully considered the best name for this file
and this was my best option (other possibilities were intel_lr_context.c
or intel_execlist.c). I am open to a certain bikeshedding on this matter,
anyway.
And some point in time, it would be a good idea to split intel_lrc.c/.h
even further, but for the moment just shove everything together.
v2: Change to intel_lrc.c
v3: Squash together with the header file addition
Signed-off-by: Oscar Mateo <oscar.mateo@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Damien Lespiau <damien.lespiau@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
Oscar Mateo