[PATCH 12/28] drm/amdgpu: use new iterator in amdgpu_ttm_bo_eviction_valuable

[Daniel Vetter]

On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 12:30:40PM -0400, Felix Kuehling wrote:
> Am 2021-10-19 um 7:36 a.m. schrieb Christian König:
> > Am 13.10.21 um 16:07 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
> >> On Tue, Oct 05, 2021 at 01:37:26PM +0200, Christian König wrote:
> >>> Simplifying the code a bit.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Christian König <christian.koenig at amd.com>
> >>> ---
> >>>   drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_ttm.c | 14 ++++----------
> >>>   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_ttm.c
> >>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_ttm.c
> >>> index e8d70b6e6737..722e3c9e8882 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_ttm.c
> >>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_ttm.c
> >>> @@ -1345,10 +1345,9 @@ static bool
> >>> amdgpu_ttm_bo_eviction_valuable(struct ttm_buffer_object *bo,
> >>>                           const struct ttm_place *place)
> >>>   {
> >>>       unsigned long num_pages = bo->resource->num_pages;
> >>> +    struct dma_resv_iter resv_cursor;
> >>>       struct amdgpu_res_cursor cursor;
> >>> -    struct dma_resv_list *flist;
> >>>       struct dma_fence *f;
> >>> -    int i;
> >>>         /* Swapout? */
> >>>       if (bo->resource->mem_type == TTM_PL_SYSTEM)
> >>> @@ -1362,14 +1361,9 @@ static bool
> >>> amdgpu_ttm_bo_eviction_valuable(struct ttm_buffer_object *bo,
> >>>        * If true, then return false as any KFD process needs all its
> >>> BOs to
> >>>        * be resident to run successfully
> >>>        */
> >>> -    flist = dma_resv_shared_list(bo->base.resv);
> >>> -    if (flist) {
> >>> -        for (i = 0; i < flist->shared_count; ++i) {
> >>> -            f = rcu_dereference_protected(flist->shared[i],
> >>> -                dma_resv_held(bo->base.resv));
> >>> -            if (amdkfd_fence_check_mm(f, current->mm))
> >>> -                return false;
> >>> -        }
> >>> +    dma_resv_for_each_fence(&resv_cursor, bo->base.resv, true, f) {
> >>                                 ^false?
> >>
> >> At least I'm not seeing the code look at the exclusive fence here.
> >
> > Yes, but that's correct. We need to look at all potential fences.
> 
> amdkfd_fence_check_mm is only meaningful for KFD eviction fences, and
> they are always added as shared fences. I think setting all_fences =
> false would return only the exclusive fence.

Hm yeah I got that wrong, which puts my entire review a bit in question
:-)

Anyway on the patch: Reviewed-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter at ffwll.ch>

> 
> Regards,
>   Felix
> 
> 
> >
> > It's a design problem in KFD if you ask me, but that is a completely
> > different topic.
> >
> > Christian.
> >
> >> -Daniel
> >>
> >>> +        if (amdkfd_fence_check_mm(f, current->mm))
> >>> +            return false;
> >>>       }
> >>>         switch (bo->resource->mem_type) {
> >>> -- 
> >>> 2.25.1
> >>>
> >

-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch