[PATCH 1/2] drm/radeon: add error handling to fence_wait_empty_locked

[Alex Deucher]

On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 4:25 AM, Christian König <deathsimple at vodafone.de> wrote:
> Instead of returning the error handle it directly
> and while at it fix the comments about the ring lock.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christian König <deathsimple at vodafone.de>
> Reviewed-by: Michel Dänzer <michel.daenzer at amd.com>

For the series:

Reviewed-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher at amd.com>

> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon.h       |    2 +-
>  drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_fence.c |   33 +++++++++++++++++++++------------
>  2 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon.h
> index 77b4519b..5861ec8 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon.h
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon.h
> @@ -239,7 +239,7 @@ void radeon_fence_process(struct radeon_device *rdev, int ring);
>  bool radeon_fence_signaled(struct radeon_fence *fence);
>  int radeon_fence_wait(struct radeon_fence *fence, bool interruptible);
>  int radeon_fence_wait_next_locked(struct radeon_device *rdev, int ring);
> -int radeon_fence_wait_empty_locked(struct radeon_device *rdev, int ring);
> +void radeon_fence_wait_empty_locked(struct radeon_device *rdev, int ring);
>  int radeon_fence_wait_any(struct radeon_device *rdev,
>                           struct radeon_fence **fences,
>                           bool intr);
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_fence.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_fence.c
> index 7b55625..be4e4f3 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_fence.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/radeon/radeon_fence.c
> @@ -440,14 +440,11 @@ int radeon_fence_wait_any(struct radeon_device *rdev,
>         return 0;
>  }
>
> +/* caller must hold ring lock */
>  int radeon_fence_wait_next_locked(struct radeon_device *rdev, int ring)
>  {
>         uint64_t seq;
>
> -       /* We are not protected by ring lock when reading current seq but
> -        * it's ok as worst case is we return to early while we could have
> -        * wait.
> -        */
>         seq = atomic64_read(&rdev->fence_drv[ring].last_seq) + 1ULL;
>         if (seq >= rdev->fence_drv[ring].sync_seq[ring]) {
>                 /* nothing to wait for, last_seq is
> @@ -457,15 +454,27 @@ int radeon_fence_wait_next_locked(struct radeon_device *rdev, int ring)
>         return radeon_fence_wait_seq(rdev, seq, ring, false, false);
>  }
>
> -int radeon_fence_wait_empty_locked(struct radeon_device *rdev, int ring)
> +/* caller must hold ring lock */
> +void radeon_fence_wait_empty_locked(struct radeon_device *rdev, int ring)
>  {
> -       /* We are not protected by ring lock when reading current seq
> -        * but it's ok as wait empty is call from place where no more
> -        * activity can be scheduled so there won't be concurrent access
> -        * to seq value.
> -        */
> -       return radeon_fence_wait_seq(rdev, rdev->fence_drv[ring].sync_seq[ring],
> -                                    ring, false, false);
> +       uint64_t seq = rdev->fence_drv[ring].sync_seq[ring];
> +
> +       while(1) {
> +               int r;
> +               r = radeon_fence_wait_seq(rdev, seq, ring, false, false);
> +               if (r == -EDEADLK) {
> +                       mutex_unlock(&rdev->ring_lock);
> +                       r = radeon_gpu_reset(rdev);
> +                       mutex_lock(&rdev->ring_lock);
> +                       if (!r)
> +                               continue;
> +               }
> +               if (r) {
> +                       dev_err(rdev->dev, "error waiting for ring to become"
> +                               " idle (%d)\n", r);
> +               }
> +               return;
> +       }
>  }
>
>  struct radeon_fence *radeon_fence_ref(struct radeon_fence *fence)
> --
> 1.7.9.5
>
> _______________________________________________
> dri-devel mailing list
> dri-devel at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel