drm/i915/guc: Ensure request ordering via completion fences
If two requests are on the same ring, they are explicitly ordered by the HW. So, a submission fence is sufficient to ensure ordering when using the new GuC submission interface. Conversely, if two requests share a timeline and are on the same physical engine but different context this doesn't ensure ordering on the new GuC submission interface. So, a completion fence needs to be used to ensure ordering. v2: (Daniele) - Don't delete spin lock v3: (Daniele) - Delete forward dec Signed-off-by: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@Intel.com> Signed-off-by: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@intel.com> Reviewed-by: Daniele Ceraolo Spurio <daniele.ceraolospurio@intel.com> Signed-off-by: John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@Intel.com> Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20210721215101.139794-13-matthew.brost@intel.com
This commit is contained in:
parent
e6cb8dc93f
commit
38d5ec4306
|
@ -432,6 +432,7 @@ void i915_request_retire_upto(struct i915_request *rq)
|
|||
|
||||
do {
|
||||
tmp = list_first_entry(&tl->requests, typeof(*tmp), link);
|
||||
GEM_BUG_ON(!i915_request_completed(tmp));
|
||||
} while (i915_request_retire(tmp) && tmp != rq);
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
|
@ -1463,7 +1464,8 @@ i915_request_await_request(struct i915_request *to, struct i915_request *from)
|
|||
return ret;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
if (is_power_of_2(to->execution_mask | READ_ONCE(from->execution_mask)))
|
||||
if (!intel_engine_uses_guc(to->engine) &&
|
||||
is_power_of_2(to->execution_mask | READ_ONCE(from->execution_mask)))
|
||||
ret = await_request_submit(to, from);
|
||||
else
|
||||
ret = emit_semaphore_wait(to, from, I915_FENCE_GFP);
|
||||
|
@ -1622,6 +1624,8 @@ __i915_request_add_to_timeline(struct i915_request *rq)
|
|||
prev = to_request(__i915_active_fence_set(&timeline->last_request,
|
||||
&rq->fence));
|
||||
if (prev && !__i915_request_is_complete(prev)) {
|
||||
bool uses_guc = intel_engine_uses_guc(rq->engine);
|
||||
|
||||
/*
|
||||
* The requests are supposed to be kept in order. However,
|
||||
* we need to be wary in case the timeline->last_request
|
||||
|
@ -1632,7 +1636,9 @@ __i915_request_add_to_timeline(struct i915_request *rq)
|
|||
i915_seqno_passed(prev->fence.seqno,
|
||||
rq->fence.seqno));
|
||||
|
||||
if (is_power_of_2(READ_ONCE(prev->engine)->mask | rq->engine->mask))
|
||||
if ((!uses_guc &&
|
||||
is_power_of_2(READ_ONCE(prev->engine)->mask | rq->engine->mask)) ||
|
||||
(uses_guc && prev->context == rq->context))
|
||||
i915_sw_fence_await_sw_fence(&rq->submit,
|
||||
&prev->submit,
|
||||
&rq->submitq);
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue