[Intel-gfx] [RFC 01/17] dma-fence: add might_sleep annotation to _wait()
Chris Wilson
chris at chris-wilson.co.uk
Tue May 12 09:03:12 UTC 2020
Quoting Daniel Vetter (2020-05-12 09:59:28)
> But only for non-zero timeout, to avoid false positives.
>
> One question here is whether the might_sleep should be unconditional,
> or only for real timeouts. I'm not sure, so went with the more
> defensive option. But in the interest of locking down the cross-driver
> dma_fence rules we might want to be more aggressive.
You can argue for enforcing might_sleep() as internal queries should be
using dma_fence_is_signaled() and not dma_fence_wait_timeout(0).
> Cc: linux-media at vger.kernel.org
> Cc: linaro-mm-sig at lists.linaro.org
> Cc: linux-rdma at vger.kernel.org
> Cc: amd-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
> Cc: intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
> Cc: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>
> Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst at linux.intel.com>
> Cc: Christian König <christian.koenig at amd.com>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter at intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c | 3 +++
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c
> index 052a41e2451c..6802125349fb 100644
> --- a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c
> +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c
> @@ -208,6 +208,9 @@ dma_fence_wait_timeout(struct dma_fence *fence, bool intr, signed long timeout)
> if (WARN_ON(timeout < 0))
> return -EINVAL;
>
> + if (timeout > 0)
> + might_sleep();
might_sleep_if(timeout > 0);
-Chris
More information about the Intel-gfx
mailing list