[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 3/7] drm/i915: Signal fence completion from i915_request_wait
Tvrtko Ursulin
tvrtko.ursulin at linux.intel.com
Wed Jun 19 14:27:21 UTC 2019
On 19/06/2019 12:23, Chris Wilson wrote:
> With the upcoming change to automanaged i915_active, the intent is that
> whenever we wait on the set of active fences, they are signaled and
> collected. The requirement is that all successful returns from
> i915_request_wait() signal the fence, so fixup the one remaining path
> where we may return before the interrupt has been run.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>
> Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin at intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c | 4 +++-
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c
> index 0c2b53b8a3d1..8d59c35bd22f 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c
> @@ -1451,8 +1451,10 @@ long i915_request_wait(struct i915_request *rq,
> for (;;) {
> set_current_state(state);
>
> - if (i915_request_completed(rq))
> + if (i915_request_completed(rq)) {
> + dma_fence_signal(&rq->fence);
> break;
> + }
>
> if (signal_pending_state(state, current)) {
> timeout = -ERESTARTSYS;
>
Reviewed-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin at intel.com>
Patch is fine, but I have to say commit message scares me a bit. Where
are we adding such subtle fragility that wait has to exit with fence
signaled? Is it just some specific i915_request_wait call site or all of
them?
Regards,
Tvrtko
More information about the Intel-gfx
mailing list