On 2016å¹´08æ??21æ?¥ 14:42, Edward O'Callaghan wrote:
>
> On 08/18/2016 05:50 PM, Chunming Zhou wrote:
>> benifits:
>> 1. don't block userspace release at all.
>> 2. make sure userspace can look up dependency if fence isn't signaled.
>> If they cannot find ctx, that means the dependecy is signaled.
>>
>> Change-Id: I9184a7bb4f5bb6858c2dd49cfb113eeee159cf71
>> Signed-off-by: Chunming Zhou <David1.Zhou at amd.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu.h | 3 ++
>> drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_ctx.c | 51 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>> 2 files changed, 53 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu.h
>> index 6d770c2..b6320e8 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu.h
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu.h
>> @@ -35,6 +35,7 @@
>> #include <linux/interval_tree.h>
>> #include <linux/hashtable.h>
>> #include <linux/fence.h>
>> +#include <linux/fence-array.h>
>>
>> #include <ttm/ttm_bo_api.h>
>> #include <ttm/ttm_bo_driver.h>
>> @@ -1025,6 +1026,8 @@ struct amdgpu_ctx_ring {
>>
>> struct amdgpu_ctx {
>> struct kref refcount;
>> + struct fence_cb cb;
>> + struct work_struct release_work;
>> struct amdgpu_device *adev;
>> unsigned reset_counter;
>> spinlock_t ring_lock;
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_ctx.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_ctx.c
>> index 01d5612..23afe92 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_ctx.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_ctx.c
>> @@ -27,6 +27,7 @@
>>
>> static DEFINE_MUTEX(amdgpu_ctx_lock);
>> extern struct idr amdgpu_ctx_idr;
>> +static void amdgpu_ctx_release_work(struct work_struct *work);
>>
>> static int amdgpu_ctx_init(struct amdgpu_device *adev, struct amdgpu_ctx *ctx)
>> {
>> @@ -37,6 +38,7 @@ static int amdgpu_ctx_init(struct amdgpu_device *adev, struct amdgpu_ctx *ctx)
>> ctx->adev = adev;
>> kref_init(&ctx->refcount);
>> spin_lock_init(&ctx->ring_lock);
>> + INIT_WORK(&ctx->release_work, amdgpu_ctx_release_work);
>> ctx->fences = kcalloc(amdgpu_sched_jobs * AMDGPU_MAX_RINGS,
>> sizeof(struct fence*), GFP_KERNEL);
>> if (!ctx->fences)
>> @@ -120,13 +122,60 @@ static int amdgpu_ctx_alloc(struct amdgpu_device *adev,
>> return r;
>> }
>>
>> +static void amdgpu_ctx_release_work(struct work_struct *work)
>> +{
>> + struct amdgpu_ctx *ctx = container_of(work, struct amdgpu_ctx,
>> + release_work);
>> + amdgpu_ctx_fini(ctx);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void amdgpu_ctx_release_cb(struct fence *f, struct fence_cb *cb)
>> +{
>> + struct amdgpu_ctx *ctx = container_of(cb, struct amdgpu_ctx,
>> + cb);
>> + schedule_work(&ctx->release_work);
>> + fence_put(f);
>> +}
>> +
>> static void amdgpu_ctx_do_release(struct kref *ref)
>> {
>> struct amdgpu_ctx *ctx;
>> + struct fence **fences;
>> + struct fence_array *array;
>> + int i, j, k = 0, r;
>>
>> ctx = container_of(ref, struct amdgpu_ctx, refcount);
>>
>> - amdgpu_ctx_fini(ctx);
>> + fences = kmalloc_array(sizeof(void *), AMDGPU_MAX_RINGS *
>> + amdgpu_sched_jobs,
>> + GFP_KERNEL);
>> + if (!fences)
>> + return;
>> + for (i = 0; i < AMDGPU_MAX_RINGS; ++i) {
>> + for (j = 0; j < amdgpu_sched_jobs; ++j) {
>> + if (ctx->rings[i].fences[j])
>> + fences[k++] = fence_get(ctx->rings[i].fences[j]);
>> + }
>> + }
>> + if (k == 0) {
>> + amdgpu_ctx_release_cb(NULL, &ctx->cb);
>> + kfree(fences);
>> + return;
>> + }
>> +
>> + array = fence_array_create(k, fences, fence_context_alloc(1),
>> + 1, false);
>> + if (!array) {
>> + for (j = 0; j < k; ++j)
>> + fence_put(fences[j]);
>> + kfree(fences);
>> + return;
>> + }
>> + r = fence_add_callback(&array->base, &ctx->cb, amdgpu_ctx_release_cb);
>> + if (r == -ENOENT)
>> + amdgpu_ctx_release_cb(&array->base, &ctx->cb);
>> + else if (r)
> Could be wrong but should this be (r < 0) ?
I don't think so, it's different with fence_wait_timeout, which returns
the remaining jiffies.
But this one will only return 0 or negative value.
Regards,
David Zhou
>
> Kind Regards,
> Edward.
>
>> + DRM_ERROR("fence add callback failed (%d)\n", r);
>> }
>>
>> static int amdgpu_ctx_free(uint32_t id)
>>
