Am 08.11.24 um 14:01 schrieb Tvrtko Ursulin:
On 08/11/2024 09:42, Christian König wrote:
The function silently assumed that signaling was already enabled for the
dma_fence_array. This meant that without enabling signaling first we
would
never see forward progress.
Fix that by falling back to testing each individual fence when signaling
isn't enabled yet.
Signed-off-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@xxxxxxx>
---
drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence-array.c | 14 +++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence-array.c
b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence-array.c
index 46ac42bcfac0..01203796827a 100644
--- a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence-array.c
+++ b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence-array.c
@@ -103,10 +103,22 @@ static bool
dma_fence_array_enable_signaling(struct dma_fence *fence)
static bool dma_fence_array_signaled(struct dma_fence *fence)
{
struct dma_fence_array *array = to_dma_fence_array(fence);
+ unsigned int i, num_pending;
- if (atomic_read(&array->num_pending) > 0)
+ num_pending = atomic_read(&array->num_pending);
+ if (test_bit(DMA_FENCE_FLAG_ENABLE_SIGNAL_BIT,
&array->base.flags)) {
+ if (!num_pending)
+ goto signal;
return false;
+ }
+
+ for (i = 0; i < array->num_fences; ++i) {
+ if (dma_fence_is_signaled(array->fences[i]) && !--num_pending)
+ goto signal;
+ }
+ return false;
Sampling num_pending (and decrementing) and test_bit from an unlocked
path makes one need to think if there are consequences, false
negatives, positives or something. Would it be fine to simplify like
the below?
Yeah I've played around with those ideas as well but came to the
conclusion that neither of them are correct.
static bool dma_fence_array_signaled(struct dma_fence *fence)
{
struct dma_fence_array *array = to_dma_fence_array(fence);
unsigned int i;
if (atomic_read(&array->num_pending)) {
for (i = 0; i < array->num_fences; i++) {
if (!dma_fence_is_signaled(array->fences[i]))
return false;
That's not correct. num_pending is not necessary equal to the number of
fences in the array.
E.g. we have cases where num_pending is just 1 so that the
dma_fence_array signals when *any* fence in it signals.
}
}
dma_fence_array_clear_pending_error(array);
return true;
}
Or if the optimisation to not walk the array when signalling is
already enabled is deemed important, perhaps a less thinking inducing
way would be this:
...
Decrementing locally cached num_pending in the loop I think does not
bring anything since when signalling is not enabled it will be stuck
at num_fences. So the loop walks the whole array versus bail on first
unsignalled, so latter even more efficient.
That is not for optimization but for correctness.
What the patch basically does is the following:
1. Grab the current value of num_pending.
2. Test if num_pending was potentially already modified because
signaling is already enabled, if yes just test it and return the result.
3. If it wasn't modified go over the fences and see if we already have
at least num_pending signaled.
I should probably add a code comment explaining that.
In which case, should dma-fence-chain also be aligned to have the fast
path bail out?
Good point need to double check that code as well.
Thanks,
Christian.
Regards,
Tvrtko
+signal:
dma_fence_array_clear_pending_error(array);
return true;
}
