Re: [PATCH 13/18] drm/amdgpu: independence for the amdkfd_fence! v2

["Christian König" <christian.koenig@amd.com>]

On 11/28/25 11:10, Philipp Stanner wrote:
> On Fri, 2025-11-28 at 11:06 +0100, Christian König wrote:
>> On 11/27/25 12:10, Philipp Stanner wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2025-11-13 at 15:51 +0100, Christian König wrote:
>>>> This should allow amdkfd_fences to outlive the amdgpu module.
>>>>
>>>> v2: implement Felix suggestion to lock the fence while signaling it.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>>
> 
> […]
> 
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdkfd/kfd_process.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdkfd/kfd_process.c
>>>> index a085faac9fe1..8fac70b839ed 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdkfd/kfd_process.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdkfd/kfd_process.c
>>>> @@ -1173,7 +1173,7 @@ static void kfd_process_wq_release(struct work_struct *work)
>>>>  	synchronize_rcu();
>>>>  	ef = rcu_access_pointer(p->ef);
>>>>  	if (ef)
>>>> -		dma_fence_signal(ef);
>>>> +		amdkfd_fence_signal(ef);
>>>>  
>>>>  	kfd_process_remove_sysfs(p);
>>>>  	kfd_debugfs_remove_process(p);
>>>> @@ -1990,7 +1990,6 @@ kfd_process_gpuid_from_node(struct kfd_process *p, struct kfd_node *node,
>>>>  static int signal_eviction_fence(struct kfd_process *p)
>>>>  {
>>>>  	struct dma_fence *ef;
>>>> -	int ret;
>>>>  
>>>>  	rcu_read_lock();
>>>>  	ef = dma_fence_get_rcu_safe(&p->ef);
>>>> @@ -1998,10 +1997,10 @@ static int signal_eviction_fence(struct kfd_process *p)
>>>>  	if (!ef)
>>>>  		return -EINVAL;
>>>>  
>>>> -	ret = dma_fence_signal(ef);
>>>> +	amdkfd_fence_signal(ef);
>>>>  	dma_fence_put(ef);
>>>>  
>>>> -	return ret;
>>>> +	return 0;
>>>
>>> Oh wait, that's the code I'm also touching in my return code series!
>>>
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/dri-devel/cef83fed-5994-4c77-962c-9c7aac9f7306@amd.com/
>>>
>>>
>>> Does this series then solve the problem Felix pointed out in
>>> evict_process_worker()?
>>
>> No it doesn't, I wasn't aware that the higher level code actually needs the status. After all Felix is the maintainer of this part.
>>
>> This patch here needs to be rebased on top of yours and changed accordingly to still return the fence status correctly.
>>
>> But thanks for pointing that out.
> 
> 
> Alright, so my (repaired, v2) status-code-removal series shall enter drm-misc-next first, and then your series here. ACK?

Works for me, I just need both to re-base the amdgpu patches on top.

Christian.

> 
> 
> P.