Re: [PATCH 3/7] drm/i915: Signal fence completion from i915_request_wait

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

 




On 19/06/2019 12:23, Chris Wilson wrote:
With the upcoming change to automanaged i915_active, the intent is that
whenever we wait on the set of active fences, they are signaled and
collected.  The requirement is that all successful returns from
i915_request_wait() signal the fence, so fixup the one remaining path
where we may return before the interrupt has been run.

Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
---
  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c | 4 +++-
  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c
index 0c2b53b8a3d1..8d59c35bd22f 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c
@@ -1451,8 +1451,10 @@ long i915_request_wait(struct i915_request *rq,
  	for (;;) {
  		set_current_state(state);
- if (i915_request_completed(rq))
+		if (i915_request_completed(rq)) {
+			dma_fence_signal(&rq->fence);
  			break;
+		}
if (signal_pending_state(state, current)) {
  			timeout = -ERESTARTSYS;


Reviewed-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>

Patch is fine, but I have to say commit message scares me a bit. Where are we adding such subtle fragility that wait has to exit with fence signaled? Is it just some specific i915_request_wait call site or all of them?

Regards,

Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx




[Index of Archives]     [AMD Graphics]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux