+ Matt
On 25/11/2022 10:21, Christian König wrote:
TTM is just wrapping core DMA functionality here, remove the mid-layer.
No functional change.
Signed-off-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@xxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_ttm.c | 9 ++++++---
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_ttm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_ttm.c
index 5247d88b3c13..d409a77449a3 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_ttm.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_ttm.c
@@ -599,13 +599,16 @@ i915_ttm_resource_get_st(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj,
static int i915_ttm_truncate(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj)
{
struct ttm_buffer_object *bo = i915_gem_to_ttm(obj);
- int err;
+ long err;
WARN_ON_ONCE(obj->mm.madv == I915_MADV_WILLNEED);
- err = ttm_bo_wait(bo, true, false);
- if (err)
+ err = dma_resv_wait_timeout(bo->base.resv, DMA_RESV_USAGE_BOOKKEEP,
+ true, 15 * HZ);
This 15 second stuck out a bit for me and then on a slightly deeper look
it seems this timeout will "leak" into a few of i915 code paths. If we
look at the difference between the legacy shmem and ttm backend I am not
sure if the legacy one is blocking or not - but if it can block I don't
think it would have an arbitrary timeout like this. Matt your thoughts?
Regards,
Tvrtko
+ if (err < 0)
return err;
+ if (err == 0)
+ return -EBUSY;
err = i915_ttm_move_notify(bo);
if (err)
