[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 03/15] dma-buf & drm/amdgpu: remove dma_resv workaround

[Christian König]

Am 20.04.22 um 20:41 schrieb Zack Rusin:
> On Wed, 2022-04-20 at 19:40 +0200, Christian König wrote:
>> Am 20.04.22 um 19:38 schrieb Zack Rusin:
>>> On Wed, 2022-04-20 at 09:37 +0200, Christian König wrote:
>>>> ⚠ External Email
>>>>
>>>> Hi Zack,
>>>>
>>>> Am 20.04.22 um 05:56 schrieb Zack Rusin:
>>>>> On Thu, 2022-04-07 at 10:59 +0200, Christian König wrote:
>>>>>> Rework the internals of the dma_resv object to allow adding
>>>>>> more
>>>>>> than
>>>>>> one
>>>>>> write fence and remember for each fence what purpose it had.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This allows removing the workaround from amdgpu which used a
>>>>>> container
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> this instead.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Christian König <christian.koenig at amd.com>
>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter at ffwll.ch>
>>>>>> Cc: amd-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
>>>>> afaict this change broke vmwgfx which now kernel oops right
>>>>> after
>>>>> boot.
>>>>> I haven't had the time to look into it yet, so I'm not sure
>>>>> what's
>>>>> the
>>>>> problem. I'll look at this tomorrow, but just in case you have
>>>>> some
>>>>> clues, the backtrace follows:
>>>> that's a known issue and should already be fixed with:
>>>>
>>>> commit d72dcbe9fce505228dae43bef9da8f2b707d1b3d
>>>> Author: Christian König <christian.koenig at amd.com>
>>>> Date:   Mon Apr 11 15:21:59 2022 +0200
>>> Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be it. The backtrace is from the
>>> current (as of the time of sending of this email) drm-misc-next,
>>> which
>>> has this change, so it's something else.
>> Ok, that's strange. In this case I need to investigate further.
>>
>> Maybe VMWGFX is adding more than one fence and we actually need to
>> reserve multiple slots.
> This might be helper code issue with CONFIG_DEBUG_MUTEXES set. On that config
> dma_resv_reset_max_fences does:
>     fences->max_fences = fences->num_fences;
> For some objects num_fences is 0 and so after max_fences and num_fences are both 0.
> And then BUG_ON(num_fences >= max_fences) is triggered.

Yeah, but that's expected behavior.

What's not expected is that max_fences is still 0 (or equal to old 
num_fences) when VMWGFX tries to add a new fence. The function 
ttm_eu_reserve_buffers() should have reserved at least one fence slot.

So the underlying problem is that either ttm_eu_reserve_buffers() was 
never called or VMWGFX tried to add more than one fence.

Regards,
Christian.

>
> z
>