Now with the trimmed memcpy before the command parser, we try to
allocate many different sizes of batches, predominantly one or two
pages. We can therefore speed up searching for a good sized batch by
keeping the objects of buckets of roughly the same size.
v2: Add a comment about bucket sizes
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Reviewed-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com
Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
I woke up one morning and found 50k objects sitting in the batch pool
and every search seemed to iterate the entire list... Painting the
screen in oils would provide a more fluid display.
One issue with the current design is that we only check for retirements
on the current ring when preparing to submit a new batch. This means
that we can have thousands of "active" batches on another ring that we
have to walk over. The simplest way to avoid that is to split the pools
per ring and then our LRU execution ordering will also ensure that the
inactive buffers remain at the front.
v2: execlists still requires duplicate code.
v3: execlists requires more duplicate code
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Reviewed-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
Move the madvise logic out of the execbuffer main path into the
relatively rare allocation path, making the execbuffer manipulation less
fragile.
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Reviewed-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
In the next patch, I want to use the structure elsewhere and so require
it defined earlier. Rather than move the definition to an earlier location
where it feels very odd, place it in its own header file.
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Reviewed-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
By adding a new exec_entry flag, we cleanly mark the shadow objects
as purgeable after they are on the active list.
v2:
- Move 'shadow_batch_obj->madv = I915_MADV_WILLNEED' inside _get
fnc (danvet, from v4 6/7 feedback)
v3:
- Remove duplicate 'madv = I915_MADV_WILLNEED' (danvet, from v6 4/5)
Issue: VIZ-4719
Signed-off-by: Brad Volkin <bradley.d.volkin@intel.com>
Reviewed-By: Jon Bloomfield <jon.bloomfield@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
This adds a small module for managing a pool of batch buffers.
The only current use case is for the command parser, as described
in the kerneldoc in the patch. The code is simple, but separating
it out makes it easier to change the underlying algorithms and to
extend to future use cases should they arise.
The interface is simple: init to create an empty pool, fini to
clean it up, get to obtain a new buffer. Note that all buffers are
expected to be inactive before cleaning up the pool.
Locking is currently based on the caller holding the struct_mutex.
We already do that in the places where we will use the batch pool
for the command parser.
v2:
- s/BUG_ON/WARN_ON/ for locking assertions
- Remove the cap on pool size
- Switch from alloc/free to init/fini
v3:
- Idiomatic looping structure in _fini
- Correct handling of purged objects
- Don't return a buffer that's too much larger than needed
v4:
- Rebased to latest -nightly
v5:
- Remove _put() function and clean up comments to match
v6:
- Move purged check inside the loop (danvet, from v4 1/7 feedback)
v7:
- Use single list instead of two. (Chris W)
- s/active_list/cache_list
- Squashed in debug patches (Chris W)
drm/i915: Add a batch pool debugfs file
It provides some useful information about the buffers in
the global command parser batch pool.
v2: rebase on global pool instead of per-ring pools
v3: rebase
drm/i915: Add batch pool details to i915_gem_objects debugfs
To better account for the potentially large memory consumption
of the batch pool.
v8:
- Keep cache in LRU order (danvet, from v6 1/5 feedback)
Issue: VIZ-4719
Signed-off-by: Brad Volkin <bradley.d.volkin@intel.com>
Reviewed-By: Jon Bloomfield <jon.bloomfield@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
