On 22/05/2025 17:19, Christian König wrote:
On 5/22/25 16:27, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 22/05/2025 14:41, Christian König wrote:
Since we already iterated over the xarray we know at which index the new
entry should be stored. So instead of using xa_alloc use xa_store and
write into the index directly.
Signed-off-by: Christian König <christian.koe...@amd.com>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c | 12 ++++++------
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c
index f7118497e47a..d2d64bf17c96 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/scheduler/sched_main.c
@@ -871,10 +871,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_sched_job_arm);
int drm_sched_job_add_dependency(struct drm_sched_job *job,
struct dma_fence *fence)
{
+ unsigned long index = -1;
struct dma_fence *entry;
- unsigned long index;
- u32 id = 0;
- int ret;
if (!fence)
return 0;
@@ -896,11 +894,13 @@ int drm_sched_job_add_dependency(struct drm_sched_job
*job,
return 0;
}
- ret = xa_alloc(&job->dependencies, &id, fence, xa_limit_32b,
GFP_KERNEL);
- if (ret != 0)
+ entry = xa_store(&job->dependencies, index + 1, fence, GFP_KERNEL);
From the code it looks index does not "move" for NULL slots?
Correct, but I just found out that the macro initializes index to zero, so that
approach also doesn't work.
*sigh* going to look into this again tomorrow. It looks like this use case is
somehow not well supported at all by xarray.
Back to the stub fence and __dma_fence_is_signaled()? ;)
Regards,
Tvrtko
That is, if someone:
1) Preallocates one entry, when trying to populate it index will be -1 after
xa_for_each?
2) Add one, preallocate one, then add one more - index will be 0 after
xa_for_each?
Regards,
Tvrtko
+ if (xa_is_err(entry))
dma_fence_put(fence);
+ else
+ WARN_ON(entry);
- return ret;
+ return xa_err(entry);
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(drm_sched_job_add_dependency);
