Forgo the struct_mutex serialisation for i915_active, and interpose its
own mutex handling for active/retire.
This is a multi-layered sleight-of-hand. First, we had to ensure that no
active/retire callbacks accidentally inverted the mutex ordering rules,
nor assumed that they were themselves serialised by struct_mutex. More
challenging though, is the rule over updating elements of the active
rbtree. Instead of the whole i915_active now being serialised by
struct_mutex, allocations/rotations of the tree are serialised by the
i915_active.mutex and individual nodes are serialised by the caller
using the i915_timeline.mutex (we need to use nested spinlocks to
interact with the dma_fence callback lists).
The pain point here is that instead of a single mutex around execbuf, we
now have to take a mutex for active tracker (one for each vma, context,
etc) and a couple of spinlocks for each fence update. The improvement in
fine grained locking allowing for multiple concurrent clients
(eventually!) should be worth it in typical loads.
v2: Add some comments that barely elucidate anything :(
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Reviewed-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20191004134015.13204-6-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk
As not only is the signal->timeline volatile, so will be acquiring the
timeline's HWSP. We must first carefully acquire the timeline from the
signaling request and then lock the timeline. With the removal of the
struct_mutex serialisation of request construction, we can have multiple
timelines active at once, and so we must avoid using the nested mutex
lock as it is quite possible for both timelines to be establishing
semaphores on the other and so deadlock.
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20190919111912.21631-3-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk
The request->timeline is only valid until the request is retired (i.e.
before it is completed). Upon retiring the request, the context may be
unpinned and freed, and along with it the timeline may be freed. We
therefore need to be very careful when chasing rq->timeline that the
pointer does not disappear beneath us. The vast majority of users are in
a protected context, either during request construction or retirement,
where the timeline->mutex is held and the timeline cannot disappear. It
is those few off the beaten path (where we access a second timeline) that
need extra scrutiny -- to be added in the next patch after first adding
the warnings about dangerous access.
One complication, where we cannot use the timeline->mutex itself, is
during request submission onto hardware (under spinlocks). Here, we want
to check on the timeline to finalize the breadcrumb, and so we need to
impose a second rule to ensure that the request->timeline is indeed
valid. As we are submitting the request, it's context and timeline must
be pinned, as it will be used by the hardware. Since it is pinned, we
know the request->timeline must still be valid, and we cannot submit the
idle barrier until after we release the engine->active.lock, ergo while
submitting and holding that spinlock, a second thread cannot release the
timeline.
v2: Don't be lazy inside selftests; hold the timeline->mutex for as long
as we need it, and tidy up acquiring the timeline with a bit of
refactoring (i915_active_add_request)
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20190919111912.21631-1-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk
We use timeline->mutex to protect modifications to
context->active_count, and the associated enable/disable callbacks.
Due to complications with engine-pm barrier there is a path where we used
a "superlock" to provide serialised protect and so could not
unconditionally assert with lockdep that it was always held. However,
we can mark the mutex as taken (noting that we may be nested underneath
ourselves) which means we can be reassured the right timeline->mutex is
always treated as held and let lockdep roam free.
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@linux.intel.com>
Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20190816121000.8507-1-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk
In preparation for removing struct_mutex from around context retirement,
we need to make timeline pinning and unpinning safe. Since multiple
engines/contexts can share a single timeline, we cannot rely on
borrowing the context mutex (otherwise we could state that the timeline
is only pinned/unpinned inside the context pin/unpin and so guarded by
it). However, we only perform a sequence of atomic operations inside the
timeline pin/unpin and the sequence of those operations is safe for a
concurrent unpin / pin, so we can relax the struct_mutex requirement.
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Reviewed-by: Matthew Auld <matthew.auld@intel.com>
Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20190815205709.24285-3-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk
i915_gem_wait_for_idle() and i915_retire_requests() introduce a
dependency on the timeline->mutex. This is problematic as we want to
later perform allocations underneath i915_active.mutex, forming a link
between the shrinker, the timeline and active mutexes. Nip this cycle in
the bud by removing the acquisition of the timeline mutex (i.e.
retiring) from inside the shrinker.
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Reviewed-by: Matthew Auld <matthew.auld@intel.com>
Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20190621183801.23252-1-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk
