Quoting Sultan Alsawaf (2020-03-30 17:35:14)
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 05:27:28PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > Quoting Sultan Alsawaf (2020-03-30 04:30:57)
> > > +static void engine_retire(struct work_struct *work)
> > > +{
> > > + struct intel_engine_cs *engine =
> > > + container_of(work, typeof(*engine), retire_work);
> > > + struct intel_timeline *tl = xchg(&engine->retire, NULL);
> > > +
> > > + do {
> > > + struct intel_timeline *next = xchg(&tl->retire, NULL);
> > > +
> > > + /*
> > > + * Our goal here is to retire _idle_ timelines as soon as
> > > + * possible (as they are idle, we do not expect userspace
> > > + * to be cleaning up anytime soon).
> > > + *
> > > + * If the timeline is currently locked, either it is being
> > > + * retired elsewhere or about to be!
> > > + */
> >
> > iirc the backport requires the retirement to be wrapped in struct_mutex
> >
> > mutex_lock(&engine->i915->drm.struct_mutex);
> >
> > > + if (mutex_trylock(&tl->mutex)) {
> > > + retire_requests(tl);
> > > + mutex_unlock(&tl->mutex);
> > > + }
> >
> > mutex_unlock(&engine->i915->drm.struct_mutex);
> >
> > Now the question is whether that was for 5.3 or 5.4. I think 5.3 is
> > where the changes were more severe and where we switch to the 4.19
> > approach.
> >
> > > + intel_timeline_put(tl);
> > > +
> > > + GEM_BUG_ON(!next);
> > > + tl = ptr_mask_bits(next, 1);
> > > + } while (tl);
> > > +}
>
> In 5.4, the existing retirement instances don't hold
> `&engine->i915->drm.struct_mutex`, however it is held in 5.3. So it looks like
> this is fine as-is for 5.4.
git agrees.
commit e5dadff4b09376e8ed92ecc0c12f1b9b3b1fbd19
Author: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu Aug 15 21:57:09 2019 +0100
drm/i915: Protect request retirement with timeline->mutex
is in v5.4, so we should be safe to retire without the struct_mutex.
-Chris
