The headers in the gem/selftests/, gt/selftests, gvt/, selftests/
directories have never been compile-tested, but it would be possible
to make them self-contained.
This commit only addresses missing <linux/types.h> and forward
struct declarations.
Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>
Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20191108094142.25942-1-yamada.masahiro@socionext.com
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 every i915_active_request should be serialised by a dedicated lock,
i915_active consists of a tree of locks; one for each node. Markup up
the i915_active_request with what lock is supposed to be guarding it so
that we can verify that the serialised updated are indeed serialised.
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Reviewed-by: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@linux.intel.com>
Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20190816121000.8507-2-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk
