Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2019-09-19 14:02:19)
>
> On 19/09/2019 12:19, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > +static struct intel_timeline *get_timeline(struct i915_request *rq)
> > +{
> > + struct intel_timeline *tl;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Even though we are holding the engine->active.lock here, there
> > + * is no control over the submission queue per-se and we are
> > + * inspecting the active state at a random point in time, with an
> > + * unknown queue. Play safe and make sure the timeline remains valid.
> > + * (Only being used for pretty printing, one extra kref shouldn't
> > + * cause a camel stampede!)
> > + */
> > + rcu_read_lock();
> > + tl = rcu_dereference(rq->timeline);
> > + if (!kref_get_unless_zero(&tl->kref))
> > + tl = NULL;
> > + rcu_read_unlock();
>
> How can it be NULL under the active lock? Isn't that the same assertion
> from i915_timeline_get_active.
Not NULL, but retired. The difference is that during submission we know
that this request's context/timeline must be currently pinned until
a subsequent request (containing the idle-barriers) is submitted. The
danger I worry about here is that subsequent idle request may be already
submitted and since the queued requests may *already* have been retired,
the timeline may be unpinned and indeed dropped it's last reference.
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/selftest_context.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/selftest_context.c
> > index 9d1ea26c7a2d..4ce1e25433d2 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/selftest_context.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/selftest_context.c
> > @@ -14,22 +14,28 @@
> >
> > static int request_sync(struct i915_request *rq)
> > {
> > + struct intel_timeline *tl = i915_request_timeline(rq);
> > long timeout;
> > int err = 0;
> >
> > + intel_timeline_get(tl);
> > i915_request_get(rq);
> >
> > - i915_request_add(rq);
> > + /* Opencode i915_request_add() so we can keep the timeline locked. */
> > + __i915_request_commit(rq);
> > + __i915_request_queue(rq, NULL);
>
> Looking at i915_request_add here we also have tasklet kicking but I
> guess for selftests it's not important.
Yup, and immediately before a wait, that tasklet should be scheduled
naturally in the near future.
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
