[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 16/26] drm/i915: use new iterator in i915_gem_object_wait_reservation v2

[Tvrtko Ursulin]

On 17/09/2021 13:35, Christian König wrote:
> Simplifying the code a bit.
> 
> v2: add missing rcu read unlock.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Christian König <christian.koenig at amd.com>
> ---
>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_wait.c | 57 ++++++------------------
>   1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_wait.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_wait.c
> index f909aaa09d9c..e416cf528635 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_wait.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_wait.c
> @@ -37,55 +37,26 @@ i915_gem_object_wait_reservation(struct dma_resv *resv,
>   				 unsigned int flags,
>   				 long timeout)
>   {
> -	struct dma_fence *excl;
> -	bool prune_fences = false;
> -
> -	if (flags & I915_WAIT_ALL) {
> -		struct dma_fence **shared;
> -		unsigned int count, i;
> -		int ret;
> -
> -		ret = dma_resv_get_fences(resv, &excl, &count, &shared);
> -		if (ret)
> -			return ret;
> -
> -		for (i = 0; i < count; i++) {
> -			timeout = i915_gem_object_wait_fence(shared[i],
> -							     flags, timeout);
> -			if (timeout < 0)
> -				break;
> -
> -			dma_fence_put(shared[i]);
> -		}
> -
> -		for (; i < count; i++)
> -			dma_fence_put(shared[i]);
> -		kfree(shared);
> -
> -		/*
> -		 * If both shared fences and an exclusive fence exist,
> -		 * then by construction the shared fences must be later
> -		 * than the exclusive fence. If we successfully wait for
> -		 * all the shared fences, we know that the exclusive fence
> -		 * must all be signaled. If all the shared fences are
> -		 * signaled, we can prune the array and recover the
> -		 * floating references on the fences/requests.
> -		 */
> -		prune_fences = count && timeout >= 0;
> -	} else {
> -		excl = dma_resv_get_excl_unlocked(resv);
> +	struct dma_resv_iter cursor;
> +	struct dma_fence *fence;
> +
> +	rcu_read_lock();
> +	dma_resv_iter_begin(&cursor, resv, flags & I915_WAIT_ALL);
> +	dma_resv_for_each_fence_unlocked(&cursor, fence) {
> +		rcu_read_unlock();
> +		timeout = i915_gem_object_wait_fence(fence, flags, timeout);

Converting this one could be problematic. It's the wait ioctl which used 
to grab an atomic snapshot and wait for that rendering to complete. With 
this change I think it has the potential to run forever keeps catching 
new activity against the same object.

I am not sure whether or not the difference is relevant for how 
userspace uses it but I think needs discussion.

Hm actually there are internal callers as well, and at least some of 
those have the object locked. Would a wider refactoring to separate 
those into buckets (locked vs unlocked) make sense?

Regards,

Tvrtko


> +		rcu_read_lock();
> +		if (timeout < 0)
> +			break;
>   	}
> -
> -	if (excl && timeout >= 0)
> -		timeout = i915_gem_object_wait_fence(excl, flags, timeout);
> -
> -	dma_fence_put(excl);
> +	dma_resv_iter_end(&cursor);
> +	rcu_read_unlock();
>   
>   	/*
>   	 * Opportunistically prune the fences iff we know they have *all* been
>   	 * signaled.
>   	 */
> -	if (prune_fences)
> +	if (timeout > 0)
>   		dma_resv_prune(resv);
>   
>   	return timeout;
>