[PATCH] drm/amdgpu: lock the eviction fence before signaling it
Christian König
christian.koenig at amd.com
Fri May 9 10:38:05 UTC 2025
On 5/9/25 08:31, Liang, Prike wrote:
> [Public]
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Koenig, Christian <Christian.Koenig at amd.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, May 8, 2025 9:56 PM
>> To: Liang, Prike <Prike.Liang at amd.com>; amd-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
>> Cc: Deucher, Alexander <Alexander.Deucher at amd.com>
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/amdgpu: lock the eviction fence before signaling it
>>
>>
>>
>> On 5/8/25 15:44, Prike Liang wrote:
>>> Lock and refer to the eviction fence before trying to signal it.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Prike Liang <Prike.Liang at amd.com>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_eviction_fence.c | 5 ++++-
>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_eviction_fence.c
>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_eviction_fence.c
>>> index 1a7469543db5..dd272c1fcbb4 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_eviction_fence.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_eviction_fence.c
>>> @@ -108,13 +108,16 @@ amdgpu_eviction_fence_suspend_worker(struct
>> work_struct *work)
>>> struct amdgpu_eviction_fence *ev_fence;
>>>
>>> mutex_lock(&uq_mgr->userq_mutex);
>>> - ev_fence = evf_mgr->ev_fence;
>>> + spin_lock(&evf_mgr->ev_fence_lock);
>>> + ev_fence = (struct amdgpu_eviction_fence *)dma_fence_get(&evf_mgr-
>>> ev_fence->base);
>>
>> That case is not a good approach, instead put the dma_fence_get on a separate
>> line.
> Thank for the suggestion, as such change can benefit on the readability?
> Do you mean something like the following change?
>
> struct amdgpu_eviction_fence *ev_fence;
> + struct amdgpu_eviction_fence *ev_fence = NULL;
> + struct dma_fence *base_fence;
>
> mutex_lock(&uq_mgr->userq_mutex);
> - ev_fence = evf_mgr->ev_fence;
> + spin_lock(&evf_mgr->ev_fence_lock);
> + base_fence = dma_fence_get(&evf_mgr->ev_fence->base);
> + if (base_fence)
> + ev_fence = (struct amdgpu_eviction_fence *)base_fence;
No what I mean was this just the other way around:
ev_fence = evf_mgr->ev_fence;
if (ev_fence)
dma_fence_get(&ev_fence->base);
E.g. try to avoid the return value of dma_fence_get(). That is only meant to be used in macros or when we pass the value to functions who take ownership of the reference.
Regards,
Christian.
> + spin_unlock(&evf_mgr->ev_fence_lock);
> if (!ev_fence)
> goto unlock;
>
> amdgpu_userq_evict(uq_mgr, ev_fence);
>
> unlock:
> + dma_fence_put(base_fence);
>
>> Apart from that it looks good to me.
>>
>> Christian.
>>
>>> + spin_unlock(&evf_mgr->ev_fence_lock);
>>> if (!ev_fence)
>>> goto unlock;
>>>
>>> amdgpu_userq_evict(uq_mgr, ev_fence);
>>>
>>> unlock:
>>> + dma_fence_put(&evf_mgr->ev_fence->base);
>>> mutex_unlock(&uq_mgr->userq_mutex);
>>> }
>>>
>
More information about the amd-gfx
mailing list