[PATCH v4 12/30] drm/xe: Move ufence check to op_lock
Matthew Brost
matthew.brost at intel.com
Tue Mar 26 18:49:05 UTC 2024
On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 02:37:28PM -0600, Zeng, Oak wrote:
> Patch makes sense to me. See one comment inline
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Intel-xe <intel-xe-bounces at lists.freedesktop.org> On Behalf Of Matthew
> > Brost
> > Sent: Friday, March 8, 2024 12:08 AM
> > To: intel-xe at lists.freedesktop.org
> > Cc: Brost, Matthew <matthew.brost at intel.com>
> > Subject: [PATCH v4 12/30] drm/xe: Move ufence check to op_lock
> >
> > Rather than checking for an unsignaled ufence ay unbind time, check for
> > this during the op_lock function. This will help with the transition to
> > job 1 per VM bind IOCTL.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost at intel.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_vm.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++----------
> > 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_vm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_vm.c
> > index 4432531f39fe..5767955529dd 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_vm.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_vm.c
> > @@ -1665,16 +1665,6 @@ xe_vm_unbind_vma(struct xe_vma *vma, struct
> > xe_exec_queue *q,
> >
> > trace_xe_vma_unbind(vma);
> >
> > - if (vma->ufence) {
> > - struct xe_user_fence * const f = vma->ufence;
> > -
> > - if (!xe_sync_ufence_get_status(f))
> > - return ERR_PTR(-EBUSY);
> > -
> > - vma->ufence = NULL;
> > - xe_sync_ufence_put(f);
> > - }
> > -
> > if (number_tiles > 1) {
> > fences = kmalloc_array(number_tiles, sizeof(*fences),
> > GFP_KERNEL);
> > @@ -2721,6 +2711,21 @@ static int vma_lock(struct drm_exec *exec, struct
> > xe_vma *vma, bool validate)
> > return err;
> > }
> >
> > +static int check_ufence(struct xe_vma *vma)
> > +{
> > + if (vma->ufence) {
> > + struct xe_user_fence * const f = vma->ufence;
> > +
> > + if (!xe_sync_ufence_get_status(f))
> > + return -EBUSY;
> > +
> > + vma->ufence = NULL;
> > + xe_sync_ufence_put(f);
> > + }
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > static int op_lock(struct drm_exec *exec, struct xe_vm *vm,
> > struct xe_vma_op *op)
> > {
> > @@ -2731,6 +2736,10 @@ static int op_lock(struct drm_exec *exec, struct xe_vm
> > *vm,
> > err = vma_lock(exec, op-
> > >map.vma, !xe_vm_in_fault_mode(vm));
> > break;
> > case DRM_GPUVA_OP_REMAP:
> > + err = check_ufence(gpuva_to_vma(op->base.remap.unmap-
> > >va));
>
> This is another reason we need to rename op_lock...
>
Agree.
Matt
> Oak
>
> > + if (err)
> > + break;
> > +
> > err = vma_lock(exec, gpuva_to_vma(op->base.remap.unmap-
> > >va),
> > false);
> > if (!err && op->remap.prev)
> > @@ -2739,6 +2748,10 @@ static int op_lock(struct drm_exec *exec, struct xe_vm
> > *vm,
> > err = vma_lock(exec, op->remap.next, true);
> > break;
> > case DRM_GPUVA_OP_UNMAP:
> > + err = check_ufence(gpuva_to_vma(op->base.unmap.va));
> > + if (err)
> > + break;
> > +
> > err = vma_lock(exec, gpuva_to_vma(op->base.unmap.va), false);
> > break;
> > case DRM_GPUVA_OP_PREFETCH:
> > --
> > 2.34.1
>
More information about the Intel-xe
mailing list