If we find ourselves waiting on a MI_SEMAPHORE_WAIT, either within the
user batch or in our own preamble, the engine raises a
GT_WAIT_ON_SEMAPHORE interrupt. We can unmask that interrupt and so
respond to a semaphore wait by yielding the timeslice, if we have
another context to yield to!
The only real complication is that the interrupt is only generated for
the start of the semaphore wait, and is asynchronous to our
process_csb() -- that is, we may not have registered the timeslice before
we see the interrupt. To ensure we don't miss a potential semaphore
blocking forward progress (e.g. selftests/live_timeslice_preempt) we mark
the interrupt and apply it to the next timeslice regardless of whether it
was active at the time.
v2: We use semaphores in preempt-to-busy, within the timeslicing
implementation itself! Ergo, when we do insert a preemption due to an
expired timeslice, the new context may start with the missed semaphore
flagged by the retired context and be yielded, ad infinitum. To avoid
this, read the context id at the time of the semaphore interrupt and
only yield if that context is still active.
Fixes: 8ee36e048c ("drm/i915/execlists: Minimalistic timeslicing")
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
Cc: Kenneth Graunke <kenneth@whitecape.org>
Reviewed-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20200407130811.17321-1-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk
(cherry picked from commit c4e8ba7390)
(cherry picked from commit cd60e4ac4738a6921592c4f7baf87f9a3499f0e2)
Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
220dcfc148