[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 15/26] drm/i915: use the new iterator in i915_request_await_object

[Tvrtko Ursulin]

On 14/09/2021 11:39, Christian König wrote:
> Am 14.09.21 um 12:26 schrieb Tvrtko Ursulin:
>>
>> On 13/09/2021 14:16, Christian König wrote:
>>> Simplifying the code a bit.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Christian König <christian.koenig at amd.com>
>>> ---
>>>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c | 36 ++++++-----------------------
>>>   1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c 
>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c
>>> index 37aef1308573..b81045ceb619 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_request.c
>>> @@ -1583,38 +1583,16 @@ i915_request_await_object(struct i915_request 
>>> *to,
>>>                 struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj,
>>>                 bool write)
>>>   {
>>> -    struct dma_fence *excl;
>>> +    struct dma_resv_cursor cursor;
>>> +    struct dma_fence *fence;
>>>       int ret = 0;
>>>   -    if (write) {
>>> -        struct dma_fence **shared;
>>> -        unsigned int count, i;
>>> -
>>> -        ret = dma_resv_get_fences(obj->base.resv, &excl, &count,
>>> -                      &shared);
>>> -        if (ret)
>>> -            return ret;
>>> -
>>> -        for (i = 0; i < count; i++) {
>>> -            ret = i915_request_await_dma_fence(to, shared[i]);
>>> -            if (ret)
>>> -                break;
>>> -
>>> -            dma_fence_put(shared[i]);
>>> +    dma_resv_for_each_fence_unlocked(obj->base.resv, &cursor, write, 
>>> fence) {
>>
>> I think callers have the object locked for this one. At least if you 
>> haven't tried it it's worth asking CI (you have the assert already so 
>> it will tell you). But I think it's important to have an atomic 
>> snapshot here.
> 
> Thanks for the info. In this case I'm just going to use the locked 
> variant of the iterator here for the next round.
> 
> Could you point me to the place where the lock is grabed/released for 
> reference?

There is quite a few callers and I haven't audited all of them. But I 
think, given the function is used for setting up tracking of implicit 
dependencies, that it has to be true.

In the case of execbuf for instance the flow is relatively complicated:

i915_gem_do_execbuffer
   eb_relocate_parse
     eb_validate_vmas
       eb_lock_vmas
         i915_gem_object_lock
   eb_submit
     eb_move_to_gpu
       i915_request_await_object
   i915_gem_ww_ctx_fini
     i915_gem_ww_ctx_unlock_all
       i915_gem_object_unlock

Other call sites have simpler flows but there is a lot of them so I 
think using CI is easiest.

Regards,

Tvrtko

> Thanks,
> Christian.
> 
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Tvrtko
>>
>>> +        ret = i915_request_await_dma_fence(to, fence);
>>> +        if (ret) {
>>> +            dma_fence_put(fence);
>>> +            break;
>>>           }
>>> -
>>> -        for (; i < count; i++)
>>> -            dma_fence_put(shared[i]);
>>> -        kfree(shared);
>>> -    } else {
>>> -        excl = dma_resv_get_excl_unlocked(obj->base.resv);
>>> -    }
>>> -
>>> -    if (excl) {
>>> -        if (ret == 0)
>>> -            ret = i915_request_await_dma_fence(to, excl);
>>> -
>>> -        dma_fence_put(excl);
>>>       }
>>>         return ret;
>>>
>