On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 10:09:05AM +0000, Brian Starkey wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 11:45:13AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 11:43 AM Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 11:29 AM Brian Starkey <Brian.Starkey@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Lowry, > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 06:34:08AM +0000, Lowry Li (Arm Technology China) wrote: > > > > > Hi Brian, > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 09:20:04PM +0800, Brian Starkey wrote: > > > > > > Hi Lowry, > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for this cleanup. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 11:04:45AM +0000, Lowry Li (Arm Technology China) wrote: > > > > > > > During it signals the completion of a writeback job, after releasing > > > > > > > the out_fence, we'd clear the pointer. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Check if fence left over in drm_writeback_cleanup_job(), release it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Lowry Li (Arm Technology China) <lowry.li@xxxxxxx> > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_writeback.c | 23 +++++++++++++++-------- > > > > > > > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_writeback.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_writeback.c > > > > > > > index ff138b6..43d9e3b 100644 > > > > > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_writeback.c > > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_writeback.c > > > > > > > @@ -324,6 +324,9 @@ void drm_writeback_cleanup_job(struct drm_writeback_job *job) > > > > > > > if (job->fb) > > > > > > > drm_framebuffer_put(job->fb); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + if (job->out_fence) > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm thinking it might be a good idea to signal the fence with an error > > > > > > here, if it's not already signaled. Otherwise, if there's someone > > > > > > waiting (which there shouldn't be), they're going to be waiting a very > > > > > > long time :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > -Brian > > > > > > > > > > > Here it happened at atomic_check failed and test only commit. For both > > > > > cases, the commit has been dropped and it's only a clean up. So here better > > > > > not be treated as an error case:) > > > > > > > > If anyone else has a reference on the fence, then IMO it absolutely is > > > > an error to reach this point without the fence being signaled - > > > > because it means that the fence will never be signaled. > > > > > > > > I don't think the API gives you a way to check if this is the last > > > > reference, so it's safest to just make sure the fence is signalled > > > > before dropping the reference. > > > > > > > > It just feels wrong to me to have the possibility of a dangling fence > > > > which is never going to get signalled; and it's an easy defensive step > > > > to make sure it can never happen. > > > > > > > > I know it _shouldn't_ happen, but we often put in handling for cases > > > > which shouldn't happen, because they frequently do happen :-) > > > > > > We're not as paranoid with the vblank fences either, so not sure why > > > we need to be this paranoid with writeback fences. If your driver > > > grabs anything from the atomic state in ->atomic_check it's buggy > > > anyway. > > > > > > If you want to fix this properly I think we need to move the call to > > > prepare_signalling() in between atomic_check and atomic_commit. Then I > > > think it makes sense to also force-complete the fence on error ... > > Well, fair enough. I'm struggling with "that's too paranoid" vs "fix > it properly" though? Is it a "problem" worth fixing or not? Up to you to decide that. > It seems natural to me to do the fence cleanup in the cleanup function > for the object which owns the fence. > > > > > > > > > Since for userspace, it should have been failed or a test only case, so > > > > > writebace fence should not be signaled. > > > > > > > > It's not only userspace that can wait on fences (and in fact this > > > > fence will never even reach userspace if the commit fails), the driver > > > > may have taken a copy to use for "something". > > > > I forgot to add: you can check this by looking at the fence reference > > count. A WARN_ON if that's more than 1 on cleanup (but also for the > > out fences) could be a nice addition. > > Do we really want to be looking at the fence internals directly like > that? Wrap it up in a helper like dma_fence_release_private or whatever, which combines the check and (hopefully final) _put(). Might need a better name. -Daniel > > Cheers, > -Brian > > > -Daniel > > -- > > Daniel Vetter > > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation > > +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
