[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2 1/4] drm/i915/clflush: fixup handling of cache_dirty

[Matthew Auld]

In theory if clflush_work_create() somehow fails here, and we don't yet
have mm.pages populated then we end up resetting cache_dirty, which is
likely wrong, since that will potentially skip the flush-on-acquire, if
it was needed.

It looks like intel_user_framebuffer_dirty() can arrive here before the
pages are populated.

v2(Thomas):
  - Move setting cache_dirty out of the async portion, also add a
    comment for why that should still be safe.

Signed-off-by: Matthew Auld <matthew.auld at intel.com>
Cc: Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom at linux.intel.com>
---
 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_clflush.c | 10 +++++++++-
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_clflush.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_clflush.c
index f0435c6feb68..47586a8a1b73 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_clflush.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_clflush.c
@@ -109,12 +109,20 @@ bool i915_gem_clflush_object(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj,
 						I915_FENCE_GFP);
 		dma_resv_add_excl_fence(obj->base.resv, &clflush->base.dma);
 		dma_fence_work_commit(&clflush->base);
+		/*
+		 * We must have successfully populated the pages(since we are
+		 * holding a pin on the pages as per the flush worker) to reach
+		 * this point, which must mean we have already done the required
+		 * flush-on-acquire, hence resetting cache_dirty here should be
+		 * safe.
+		 */
+		obj->cache_dirty = false;
 	} else if (obj->mm.pages) {
 		__do_clflush(obj);
+		obj->cache_dirty = false;
 	} else {
 		GEM_BUG_ON(obj->write_domain != I915_GEM_DOMAIN_CPU);
 	}
 
-	obj->cache_dirty = false;
 	return true;
 }
-- 
2.26.3