On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 4:37 PM Chris Wilson wrote:
>
> Quoting Daniel Vetter (2020-07-15 15:03:34)
> > On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 2:40 PM Chris Wilson
> > wrote:
> > > There's a further problem in that we call INIT_LIST_HEAD on the
> > > dma_fence_cb before the signal callback. So even if
Quoting Daniel Vetter (2020-07-15 15:03:34)
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 2:40 PM Chris Wilson wrote:
> > There's a further problem in that we call INIT_LIST_HEAD on the
> > dma_fence_cb before the signal callback. So even if list_empty_careful()
> > confirms the dma_fence_cb to be completely
On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 2:40 PM Chris Wilson wrote:
> Quoting Chris Wilson (2020-07-15 13:21:43)
> > Quoting Daniel Vetter (2020-07-15 13:10:22)
> > > On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 11:49:05AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > > When waiting with a callback on the stack, we must remove the callback
> > >
Quoting Chris Wilson (2020-07-15 13:21:43)
> Quoting Daniel Vetter (2020-07-15 13:10:22)
> > On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 11:49:05AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > When waiting with a callback on the stack, we must remove the callback
> > > upon wait completion. Since this will be notified by the
Quoting Daniel Vetter (2020-07-15 13:10:22)
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 11:49:05AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > When waiting with a callback on the stack, we must remove the callback
> > upon wait completion. Since this will be notified by the fence signal
> > callback, the removal often contends
On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 11:49:05AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> When waiting with a callback on the stack, we must remove the callback
> upon wait completion. Since this will be notified by the fence signal
> callback, the removal often contends with the fence->lock being held by
> the signaler.
