On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 2:47 PM Matthew Auld
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 6 Jul 2021 at 11:12, Daniel Vetter <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > We're lifting, or well, clarifying that the restriction that shared
> > fences have to be strictly after the exclusive one doesn't apply
> > anymore.
> >
> > So adjust the code to always also wait for the exclusive fence.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <[email protected]>
> > Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <[email protected]>
> > Cc: "Thomas Hellström" <[email protected]>
> > Cc: Jason Ekstrand <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_sw_fence.c | 4 ++--
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_sw_fence.c
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_sw_fence.c
> > index 91711a46b1c7..271d321cea83 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_sw_fence.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_sw_fence.c
> > @@ -601,10 +601,10 @@ int i915_sw_fence_await_reservation(struct
> > i915_sw_fence *fence,
> > for (i = 0; i < count; i++)
> > dma_fence_put(shared[i]);
> > kfree(shared);
> > - } else {
> > - excl = dma_resv_get_excl_unlocked(resv);
> > }
> >
> > + excl = dma_resv_get_excl_unlocked(resv);
> > +
>
> The dma_resv_get_fences() call looks like it already fishes out the
> exclusive fence. Does this not leak the extra ref now?
Oh right I overlooked this, we already pick up the exclusive fence
unconditionally. Control flow here was a bit too clever for my parser.
I'll drop this patch in the next round.
-Daniel
>
> > if (ret >= 0 && excl) {
> > pending = i915_sw_fence_await_dma_fence(fence,
> > excl,
> > --
> > 2.32.0
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Intel-gfx mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
