On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 1:22 AM Matthew Brost matthew.brost@intel.com wrote:
Propagating errors to dependent fences is wrong, don't do it. A selftest in the following exposed the propagating of an error to a dependent fence after an engine reset.
I feel like we could still have a bit of a better message. Maybe something like this:
Propagating errors to dependent fences is broken and can lead to errors from one client ending up in another. In 3761baae908a (Revert "drm/i915: Propagate errors on awaiting already signaled fences"), we attempted to get rid of fence error propagation but missed the case added in 8e9f84cf5cac ("drm/i915/gt: Propagate change in error status to children on unhold"). Revert that one too. This error was found by an up-and-coming selftest which <salient information here>.
Otherwise, looks good to me.
--Jason
This reverts commit 8e9f84cf5cac248a1c6a5daa4942879c8b765058.
v2: (Daniel Vetter)
- Use revert
References: 3761baae908a (Revert "drm/i915: Propagate errors on awaiting already signaled fences") Signed-off-by: Matthew Brost matthew.brost@intel.com
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c | 4 ---- 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c index de5f9c86b9a4..cafb0608ffb4 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c @@ -2140,10 +2140,6 @@ static void __execlists_unhold(struct i915_request *rq) if (p->flags & I915_DEPENDENCY_WEAK) continue;
/* Propagate any change in error status */if (rq->fence.error)i915_request_set_error_once(w, rq->fence.error);if (w->engine != rq->engine) continue;-- 2.32.0