On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 4:25 AM, Christian König <deathsimple@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Instead of returning the error handle it directly
> and while at it fix the comments about the ring lock.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christian König <deathsimple@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Reviewed-by: Michel Dänzer <michel.daenzer@xxxxxxx>
For the series:
Reviewed-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@xxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon.h | 2 +-
> drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_fence.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++------------
> 2 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon.h
> index 77b4519b..5861ec8 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon.h
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon.h
> @@ -239,7 +239,7 @@ void radeon_fence_process(struct radeon_device *rdev, int ring);
> bool radeon_fence_signaled(struct radeon_fence *fence);
> int radeon_fence_wait(struct radeon_fence *fence, bool interruptible);
> int radeon_fence_wait_next_locked(struct radeon_device *rdev, int ring);
> -int radeon_fence_wait_empty_locked(struct radeon_device *rdev, int ring);
> +void radeon_fence_wait_empty_locked(struct radeon_device *rdev, int ring);
> int radeon_fence_wait_any(struct radeon_device *rdev,
> struct radeon_fence **fences,
> bool intr);
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_fence.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_fence.c
> index 7b55625..be4e4f3 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_fence.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_fence.c
> @@ -440,14 +440,11 @@ int radeon_fence_wait_any(struct radeon_device *rdev,
> return 0;
> }
>
> +/* caller must hold ring lock */
> int radeon_fence_wait_next_locked(struct radeon_device *rdev, int ring)
> {
> uint64_t seq;
>
> - /* We are not protected by ring lock when reading current seq but
> - * it's ok as worst case is we return to early while we could have
> - * wait.
> - */
> seq = atomic64_read(&rdev->fence_drv[ring].last_seq) + 1ULL;
> if (seq >= rdev->fence_drv[ring].sync_seq[ring]) {
> /* nothing to wait for, last_seq is
> @@ -457,15 +454,27 @@ int radeon_fence_wait_next_locked(struct radeon_device *rdev, int ring)
> return radeon_fence_wait_seq(rdev, seq, ring, false, false);
> }
>
> -int radeon_fence_wait_empty_locked(struct radeon_device *rdev, int ring)
> +/* caller must hold ring lock */
> +void radeon_fence_wait_empty_locked(struct radeon_device *rdev, int ring)
> {
> - /* We are not protected by ring lock when reading current seq
> - * but it's ok as wait empty is call from place where no more
> - * activity can be scheduled so there won't be concurrent access
> - * to seq value.
> - */
> - return radeon_fence_wait_seq(rdev, rdev->fence_drv[ring].sync_seq[ring],
> - ring, false, false);
> + uint64_t seq = rdev->fence_drv[ring].sync_seq[ring];
> +
> + while(1) {
> + int r;
> + r = radeon_fence_wait_seq(rdev, seq, ring, false, false);
> + if (r == -EDEADLK) {
> + mutex_unlock(&rdev->ring_lock);
> + r = radeon_gpu_reset(rdev);
> + mutex_lock(&rdev->ring_lock);
> + if (!r)
> + continue;
> + }
> + if (r) {
> + dev_err(rdev->dev, "error waiting for ring to become"
> + " idle (%d)\n", r);
> + }
> + return;
> + }
> }
>
> struct radeon_fence *radeon_fence_ref(struct radeon_fence *fence)
> --
> 1.7.9.5
>
> _______________________________________________
> dri-devel mailing list
> dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
