On 17/07/2020 09:24, Chris Wilson wrote:
Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2020-07-17 09:13:21)
On 16/07/2020 18:28, Chris Wilson wrote:
@@ -341,8 +325,10 @@ static void insert_breadcrumb(struct i915_request *rq,
break;
}
list_add(&rq->signal_link, pos);
- if (pos == &ce->signals) /* catch transitions from empty list */
+ if (pos == &ce->signals) { /* catch transitions from empty list */
list_move_tail(&ce->signal_link, &b->signalers);
+ irq_work_queue(&b->irq_work); /* check after enabling irq */
+ }
GEM_BUG_ON(!check_signal_order(ce, rq));
set_bit(I915_FENCE_FLAG_SIGNAL, &rq->fence.flags);
@@ -401,7 +387,7 @@ bool i915_request_enable_breadcrumb(struct i915_request *rq)
spin_unlock(&b->irq_lock);
- return !__request_completed(rq);
+ return true;
Maybe my in head diff apply is failing me, but I think there isn't a
"return false" path left so could be made a return void function.
There is no return false path anymore (since we always queue the worker
which should run immediately after dma_fence_enable_signaling if
necessary, that seemed to be more sensible than conditionally using the
worker, I also looked at splitting enable_breadcrumb and
activate_breadcrumb, but the two paths are more similar than not), I
kept it bool so that it matched i915_fence_enable_signaling.
It's a bit questionable, in this case it would probably be better to
have explicit "return true" in i915_fence_enable_signaling. But it is a
minor point anyway and bugfix trumps it.
Reviewed-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
Regards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
