From: Chris Wilson Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2016 09:14:18 +0000 (+0100) Subject: drm/i915: Remove (struct_mutex) locking for busy-ioctl X-Git-Url: https://git.stricted.de/?a=commitdiff_plain;h=3fdc13c7a3cb;p=GitHub%2Fmoto-9609%2Fandroid_kernel_motorola_exynos9610.git drm/i915: Remove (struct_mutex) locking for busy-ioctl By applying the same logic as for wait-ioctl, we can query whether a request has completed without holding struct_mutex. The biggest impact system-wide is removing the flush_active and the contention that causes. Testcase: igt/gem_busy Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson Cc: Akash Goel Reviewed-by: Joonas Lahtinen Link: http://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/1470388464-28458-13-git-send-email-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk --- diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c index 42620733a558..1d8858d7973d 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c @@ -3736,49 +3736,120 @@ i915_gem_object_ggtt_unpin_view(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj, i915_vma_unpin(i915_gem_obj_to_ggtt_view(obj, view)); } +static __always_inline unsigned __busy_read_flag(unsigned int id) +{ + /* Note that we could alias engines in the execbuf API, but + * that would be very unwise as it prevents userspace from + * fine control over engine selection. Ahem. + * + * This should be something like EXEC_MAX_ENGINE instead of + * I915_NUM_ENGINES. + */ + BUILD_BUG_ON(I915_NUM_ENGINES > 16); + return 0x10000 << id; +} + +static __always_inline unsigned int __busy_write_id(unsigned int id) +{ + return id; +} + +static __always_inline unsigned +__busy_set_if_active(const struct i915_gem_active *active, + unsigned int (*flag)(unsigned int id)) +{ + /* For more discussion about the barriers and locking concerns, + * see __i915_gem_active_get_rcu(). + */ + do { + struct drm_i915_gem_request *request; + unsigned int id; + + request = rcu_dereference(active->request); + if (!request || i915_gem_request_completed(request)) + return 0; + + id = request->engine->exec_id; + + /* Check that the pointer wasn't reassigned and overwritten. */ + if (request == rcu_access_pointer(active->request)) + return flag(id); + } while (1); +} + +static inline unsigned +busy_check_reader(const struct i915_gem_active *active) +{ + return __busy_set_if_active(active, __busy_read_flag); +} + +static inline unsigned +busy_check_writer(const struct i915_gem_active *active) +{ + return __busy_set_if_active(active, __busy_write_id); +} + int i915_gem_busy_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, void *data, struct drm_file *file) { struct drm_i915_gem_busy *args = data; struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj; - int ret; - - ret = i915_mutex_lock_interruptible(dev); - if (ret) - return ret; + unsigned long active; obj = i915_gem_object_lookup(file, args->handle); - if (!obj) { - ret = -ENOENT; - goto unlock; - } + if (!obj) + return -ENOENT; - /* Count all active objects as busy, even if they are currently not used - * by the gpu. Users of this interface expect objects to eventually - * become non-busy without any further actions. - */ args->busy = 0; - if (i915_gem_object_is_active(obj)) { - struct drm_i915_gem_request *req; - int i; + active = __I915_BO_ACTIVE(obj); + if (active) { + int idx; - for (i = 0; i < I915_NUM_ENGINES; i++) { - req = i915_gem_active_peek(&obj->last_read[i], - &obj->base.dev->struct_mutex); - if (req) - args->busy |= 1 << (16 + req->engine->exec_id); - } - req = i915_gem_active_peek(&obj->last_write, - &obj->base.dev->struct_mutex); - if (req) - args->busy |= req->engine->exec_id; + /* Yes, the lookups are intentionally racy. + * + * First, we cannot simply rely on __I915_BO_ACTIVE. We have + * to regard the value as stale and as our ABI guarantees + * forward progress, we confirm the status of each active + * request with the hardware. + * + * Even though we guard the pointer lookup by RCU, that only + * guarantees that the pointer and its contents remain + * dereferencable and does *not* mean that the request we + * have is the same as the one being tracked by the object. + * + * Consider that we lookup the request just as it is being + * retired and freed. We take a local copy of the pointer, + * but before we add its engine into the busy set, the other + * thread reallocates it and assigns it to a task on another + * engine with a fresh and incomplete seqno. + * + * So after we lookup the engine's id, we double check that + * the active request is the same and only then do we add it + * into the busy set. + */ + rcu_read_lock(); + + for_each_active(active, idx) + args->busy |= busy_check_reader(&obj->last_read[idx]); + + /* For ABI sanity, we only care that the write engine is in + * the set of read engines. This is ensured by the ordering + * of setting last_read/last_write in i915_vma_move_to_active, + * and then in reverse in retire. + * + * We don't care that the set of active read/write engines + * may change during construction of the result, as it is + * equally liable to change before userspace can inspect + * the result. + */ + args->busy |= busy_check_writer(&obj->last_write); + + rcu_read_unlock(); } - i915_gem_object_put(obj); -unlock: - mutex_unlock(&dev->struct_mutex); - return ret; + i915_gem_object_put_unlocked(obj); + return 0; } int