Re: [RFC PATCH v1 08/16] drm/radeon: use common fence implementation for fences

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



op 14-05-14 17:29, Christian König schreef:
+    /* did fence get signaled after we enabled the sw irq? */
+    if (atomic64_read(&fence->rdev->fence_drv[fence->ring].last_seq) >= fence->seq) {
+        radeon_irq_kms_sw_irq_put(fence->rdev, fence->ring);
+        return false;
+    }
+
+    fence->fence_wake.flags = 0;
+    fence->fence_wake.private = NULL;
+    fence->fence_wake.func = radeon_fence_check_signaled;
+    __add_wait_queue(&fence->rdev->fence_queue, &fence->fence_wake);
+    fence_get(f);
That looks like a race condition to me. The fence needs to be added to the wait queue before the check, not after.

Apart from that the whole approach looks like a really bad idea to me. How for example is lockup detection supposed to happen with this?
It's not a race condition because fence_queue.lock is held when this function is called.

Lockup's a bit of a weird problem, the changes wouldn't allow core ttm code to handle the lockup any more,
but any driver specific wait code would still handle this. I did this by design, because in future patches the wait
function may be called from outside of the radeon driver. The official wait function takes a timeout parameter,
so lockups wouldn't be fatal if the timeout is set to something like 30*HZ for example, it would still return
and report that the function timed out.

~Maarten
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel





[Index of Archives]     [Linux DRI Users]     [Linux Intel Graphics]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]
  Powered by Linux