On 18/02/2023 19:56, Rob Clark wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 2:59 AM Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx> Use the previously added dma-fence tracking of explicit waiters. Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx> --- drivers/gpu/drm/drm_syncobj.c | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_syncobj.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_syncobj.c index 0c2be8360525..776b90774a64 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_syncobj.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_syncobj.c @@ -1065,9 +1065,9 @@ static signed long drm_syncobj_array_wait_timeout(struct drm_syncobj **syncobjs, if ((flags & DRM_SYNCOBJ_WAIT_FLAGS_WAIT_AVAILABLE) || dma_fence_is_signaled(fence) || (!entries[i].fence_cb.func && - dma_fence_add_callback(fence, - &entries[i].fence_cb, - syncobj_wait_fence_func))) { + dma_fence_add_wait_callback(fence, + &entries[i].fence_cb, + syncobj_wait_fence_func))) {I think this isn't really what you want if count > 1, because you wouldn't be notifying the fence signaler of fence n+1 until the wait on fence n completed
Are you sure? After some staring all I can see is that all callbacks are added before the first sleep.
Regards, Tvrtko
