On 17/09/2021 13:35, Christian König wrote:
Simplifying the code a bit.
v2: add missing rcu read unlock.
Signed-off-by: Christian König <christian.koe...@amd.com>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_wait.c | 57 ++++++------------------
1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_wait.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_wait.c
index f909aaa09d9c..e416cf528635 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_wait.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_wait.c
@@ -37,55 +37,26 @@ i915_gem_object_wait_reservation(struct dma_resv *resv,
unsigned int flags,
long timeout)
{
- struct dma_fence *excl;
- bool prune_fences = false;
-
- if (flags & I915_WAIT_ALL) {
- struct dma_fence **shared;
- unsigned int count, i;
- int ret;
-
- ret = dma_resv_get_fences(resv, &excl, &count, &shared);
- if (ret)
- return ret;
-
- for (i = 0; i < count; i++) {
- timeout = i915_gem_object_wait_fence(shared[i],
- flags, timeout);
- if (timeout < 0)
- break;
-
- dma_fence_put(shared[i]);
- }
-
- for (; i < count; i++)
- dma_fence_put(shared[i]);
- kfree(shared);
-
- /*
- * If both shared fences and an exclusive fence exist,
- * then by construction the shared fences must be later
- * than the exclusive fence. If we successfully wait for
- * all the shared fences, we know that the exclusive fence
- * must all be signaled. If all the shared fences are
- * signaled, we can prune the array and recover the
- * floating references on the fences/requests.
- */
- prune_fences = count && timeout >= 0;
- } else {
- excl = dma_resv_get_excl_unlocked(resv);
+ struct dma_resv_iter cursor;
+ struct dma_fence *fence;
+
+ rcu_read_lock();
+ dma_resv_iter_begin(&cursor, resv, flags & I915_WAIT_ALL);
+ dma_resv_for_each_fence_unlocked(&cursor, fence) {
+ rcu_read_unlock();
+ timeout = i915_gem_object_wait_fence(fence, flags, timeout);
Converting this one could be problematic. It's the wait ioctl which used
to grab an atomic snapshot and wait for that rendering to complete. With
this change I think it has the potential to run forever keeps catching
new activity against the same object.
I am not sure whether or not the difference is relevant for how
userspace uses it but I think needs discussion.
Hm actually there are internal callers as well, and at least some of
those have the object locked. Would a wider refactoring to separate
those into buckets (locked vs unlocked) make sense?
Regards,
Tvrtko
+ rcu_read_lock();
+ if (timeout < 0)
+ break;
}
-
- if (excl && timeout >= 0)
- timeout = i915_gem_object_wait_fence(excl, flags, timeout);
-
- dma_fence_put(excl);
+ dma_resv_iter_end(&cursor);
+ rcu_read_unlock();
/*
* Opportunistically prune the fences iff we know they have *all* been
* signaled.
*/
- if (prune_fences)
+ if (timeout > 0)
dma_resv_prune(resv);
return timeout;
