Re: [Intel-gfx] [RFC 6/9] drm/syncobj: Mark syncobj waits as external waiters

Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> · Mon, 20 Feb 2023 13:19:40 +0000

On 18/02/2023 19:56, Rob Clark wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 2:59 AM Tvrtko Ursulin
<tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>

Use the previously added dma-fence tracking of explicit waiters.

Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
---
  drivers/gpu/drm/drm_syncobj.c | 6 +++---
  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_syncobj.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_syncobj.c
index 0c2be8360525..776b90774a64 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_syncobj.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_syncobj.c
@@ -1065,9 +1065,9 @@ static signed long drm_syncobj_array_wait_timeout(struct drm_syncobj **syncobjs,
                         if ((flags & DRM_SYNCOBJ_WAIT_FLAGS_WAIT_AVAILABLE) ||
                             dma_fence_is_signaled(fence) ||
                             (!entries[i].fence_cb.func &&
-                            dma_fence_add_callback(fence,
-                                                   &entries[i].fence_cb,
-                                                   syncobj_wait_fence_func))) {
+                            dma_fence_add_wait_callback(fence,
+                                                        &entries[i].fence_cb,
+                                                        syncobj_wait_fence_func))) {

I think this isn't really what you want if count > 1, because you
wouldn't be notifying the fence signaler of fence n+1 until the wait
on fence n completed

Are you sure? After some staring all I can see is that all callbacks are 
added before the first sleep.

Regards,

Tvrtko






