All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>
To: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>, Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Cc: Lionel Landwerlin <lionel.g.landwerlin@linux.intel.com>,
	Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>,
	intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: Check the timeout passed to	i915_wait_request
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2015 11:04:15 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87oaea5yls.fsf@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20151126160655.GN23362@nuc-i3427.alporthouse.com>

On Thu, 26 Nov 2015, Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 03:49:00PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 01:31:42PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
>> > We have relied upon the sole caller (wait_ioctl) validating the timeout
>> > argument. However, when waiting for multiple requests I forgot to ensure
>> > that the timeout was still positive on the later requests. This is more
>> > simply done inside __i915_wait_request.
>> > 
>> > Fixes regression introduced in
>> > commit b47161858ba13c9c7e03333132230d66e008dd55
>> > Author: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
>> > Date:   Mon Apr 27 13:41:17 2015 +0100
>> > 
>> >     drm/i915: Implement inter-engine read-read optimisations
>> > 
>> > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
>> > Cc: Lionel Landwerlin <lionel.g.landwerlin@linux.intel.com>
>> > Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
>> > Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
>> > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
>> 
>> Commit message should explain what the actual problem is - we add 1 jiffy
>> of delay for each wait_request, potentially waiting quite a bit longer
>> than what userspace asked for.
>> 
>> And not sure this really justifies for cc: stable, since all the wait
>> syscalls reserve the right to wait longer. Of course we should fix it,
>> just to keep validating this possible.
>
> Dropping stable is fine, that was just a knee jerk reaction to finding a
> regression. The impact is 1 jiffie for each extra active ring for a
> wait_ioctl with a timeout -- I don't think anyone has noticed.

Pushed to drm-intel-fixes with some random copy-paste added about the 1
jiffy. Thanks for the patch and review.

BR,
Jani.


-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>
To: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>, Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Cc: Lionel Landwerlin <lionel.g.landwerlin@linux.intel.com>,
	Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>,
	intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Check the timeout passed to	i915_wait_request
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2015 11:04:15 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87oaea5yls.fsf@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20151126160655.GN23362@nuc-i3427.alporthouse.com>

On Thu, 26 Nov 2015, Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 03:49:00PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 01:31:42PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
>> > We have relied upon the sole caller (wait_ioctl) validating the timeout
>> > argument. However, when waiting for multiple requests I forgot to ensure
>> > that the timeout was still positive on the later requests. This is more
>> > simply done inside __i915_wait_request.
>> > 
>> > Fixes regression introduced in
>> > commit b47161858ba13c9c7e03333132230d66e008dd55
>> > Author: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
>> > Date:   Mon Apr 27 13:41:17 2015 +0100
>> > 
>> >     drm/i915: Implement inter-engine read-read optimisations
>> > 
>> > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
>> > Cc: Lionel Landwerlin <lionel.g.landwerlin@linux.intel.com>
>> > Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
>> > Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
>> > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
>> 
>> Commit message should explain what the actual problem is - we add 1 jiffy
>> of delay for each wait_request, potentially waiting quite a bit longer
>> than what userspace asked for.
>> 
>> And not sure this really justifies for cc: stable, since all the wait
>> syscalls reserve the right to wait longer. Of course we should fix it,
>> just to keep validating this possible.
>
> Dropping stable is fine, that was just a knee jerk reaction to finding a
> regression. The impact is 1 jiffie for each extra active ring for a
> wait_ioctl with a timeout -- I don't think anyone has noticed.

Pushed to drm-intel-fixes with some random copy-paste added about the 1
jiffy. Thanks for the patch and review.

BR,
Jani.


-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center

  reply	other threads:[~2015-12-01  9:00 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-11-26 13:31 [PATCH] drm/i915: Check the timeout passed to i915_wait_request Chris Wilson
2015-11-26 13:31 ` Chris Wilson
2015-11-26 14:49 ` Daniel Vetter
2015-11-26 14:49   ` Daniel Vetter
2015-11-26 16:06   ` Chris Wilson
2015-12-01  9:04     ` Jani Nikula [this message]
2015-12-01  9:04       ` [Intel-gfx] " Jani Nikula

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=87oaea5yls.fsf@intel.com \
    --to=jani.nikula@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=chris@chris-wilson.co.uk \
    --cc=daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch \
    --cc=daniel@ffwll.ch \
    --cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=lionel.g.landwerlin@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.