[PATCH 1/4] dma-buf/fence: make timeout handling in fence_default_wait consistent (v2)

[PATCH 1/4] dma-buf/fence: make timeout handling in fence_default_wait consistent (v2)

[Alex Deucher]

Kernel functions taking a timeout usually return 1 on success even
when they get a zero timeout.

v2: agd: rebase on drm-next

Reviewed-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
Signen-off-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
Reviewed-by: Chunming Zhou <david1.zhou@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
---

These are the same patches Christian sent out previously, just
rebased on the fence naming changes in drm-next.

drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c | 8 +++++---
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c
index 0c3141e7..6c3f6b4 100644
--- a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c
+++ b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c
@@ -339,18 +339,20 @@ dma_fence_default_wait_cb(struct dma_fence *fence, struct dma_fence_cb *cb)
  * @timeout:	[in]	timeout value in jiffies, or MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT
  *
  * Returns -ERESTARTSYS if interrupted, 0 if the wait timed out, or the
- * remaining timeout in jiffies on success.
+ * remaining timeout in jiffies on success. If timeout is zero the value one is
+ * returned if the fence is already signaled for consistency with other
+ * functions taking a jiffies timeout.
  */
 signed long
 dma_fence_default_wait(struct dma_fence *fence, bool intr, signed long timeout)
 {
 	struct default_wait_cb cb;
 	unsigned long flags;
-	signed long ret = timeout;
+	signed long ret = timeout ? timeout : 1;
 	bool was_set;
 
 	if (test_bit(DMA_FENCE_FLAG_SIGNALED_BIT, &fence->flags))
-		return timeout;
+		return ret;
 
 	spin_lock_irqsave(fence->lock, flags);
 
-- 
2.5.5

_______________________________________________
amd-gfx mailing list
amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx

[PATCH 2/4] dma-buf/fence: revert "don't wait when specified timeout is zero" (v2)

[Alex Deucher]

This reverts commit 847b19a39e4c9b5e74c40f0842c48b41664cb43c.

When we don't call the wait function software signaling might never be
activated. This can cause infinite polling loops with unreliable interrupt
driven hardware.

v2: rebase on drm-next

Reviewed-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
Reviewed-by: Chunming Zhou <david1.zhou@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
---
 drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c | 3 ---
 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c
index 6c3f6b4..dd00990 100644
--- a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c
+++ b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c
@@ -161,9 +161,6 @@ dma_fence_wait_timeout(struct dma_fence *fence, bool intr, signed long timeout)
 	if (WARN_ON(timeout < 0))
 		return -EINVAL;
 
-	if (timeout == 0)
-		return dma_fence_is_signaled(fence);
-
 	trace_dma_fence_wait_start(fence);
 	ret = fence->ops->wait(fence, intr, timeout);
 	trace_dma_fence_wait_end(fence);
-- 
2.5.5

_______________________________________________
amd-gfx mailing list
amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx

[PATCH 3/4] drm/ttm: fix ttm_bo_wait

[Alex Deucher]

From: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>

reservation_object_wait_timeout_rcu() should enable signaling even with a zero
timeout, but ttm_bo_wait() can also be called from atomic context and then it
is not a good idea to do this.

Reviewed-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
---
 drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c | 9 ++++++++-
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
index f6ff579..d506361 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo.c
@@ -1611,7 +1611,14 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(ttm_bo_unmap_virtual);
 int ttm_bo_wait(struct ttm_buffer_object *bo,
 		bool interruptible, bool no_wait)
 {
-	long timeout = no_wait ? 0 : 15 * HZ;
+	long timeout = 15 * HZ;
+
+	if (no_wait) {
+		if (reservation_object_test_signaled_rcu(bo->resv, true))
+			return 0;
+		else
+			return -EBUSY;
+	}
 
 	timeout = reservation_object_wait_timeout_rcu(bo->resv, true,
 						      interruptible, timeout);
-- 
2.5.5

_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel

[PATCH 4/4] reservation: revert "wait only with non-zero timeout specified (v3)" v2

[Alex Deucher]

From: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>

This reverts commit fb8b7d2b9d80e1e71f379e57355936bd2b024be9.

Otherwise signaling might never be activated on the fences. This can
result in infinite waiting with hardware which has unreliable interrupts.

v2: still return one when the timeout is zero and we don't have any fences.

Reviewed-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
Reviewed-by: Chunming Zhou <david1.zhou@amd.com> (v1)
Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
---
 drivers/dma-buf/reservation.c | 5 +----
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/reservation.c b/drivers/dma-buf/reservation.c
index 7ed56f3..393817e 100644
--- a/drivers/dma-buf/reservation.c
+++ b/drivers/dma-buf/reservation.c
@@ -370,10 +370,7 @@ long reservation_object_wait_timeout_rcu(struct reservation_object *obj,
 {
 	struct dma_fence *fence;
 	unsigned seq, shared_count, i = 0;
-	long ret = timeout;
-
-	if (!timeout)
-		return reservation_object_test_signaled_rcu(obj, wait_all);
+	long ret = timeout ? timeout : 1;
 
 retry:
 	fence = NULL;
-- 
2.5.5

_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel

Re: [PATCH 4/4] reservation: revert "wait only with non-zero timeout specified (v3)" v2

[Gustavo Padovan]

2016-11-07 Alex Deucher <alexdeucher@gmail.com>:

> From: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
> 
> This reverts commit fb8b7d2b9d80e1e71f379e57355936bd2b024be9.
> 
> Otherwise signaling might never be activated on the fences. This can
> result in infinite waiting with hardware which has unreliable interrupts.
> 
> v2: still return one when the timeout is zero and we don't have any fences.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
> Signed-off-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
> Reviewed-by: Chunming Zhou <david1.zhou@amd.com> (v1)
> Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
> ---
>  drivers/dma-buf/reservation.c | 5 +----
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)

You left all my r-b out. For the whole series:

Reviewed-by: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo.padovan@collabora.co.uk> 

Gustavo
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel

Re: [PATCH 1/4] dma-buf/fence: make timeout handling in fence_default_wait consistent (v2)

[Sumit Semwal]

Hi Alex, Christian,

On 8 November 2016 at 02:46, Alex Deucher <alexdeucher@gmail.com> wrote:
> Kernel functions taking a timeout usually return 1 on success even
> when they get a zero timeout.
>
> v2: agd: rebase on drm-next
>
> Reviewed-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
> Signen-off-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
> Reviewed-by: Chunming Zhou <david1.zhou@amd.com>
> Signed-off-by: Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@amd.com>
> ---
>
> These are the same patches Christian sent out previously, just
> rebased on the fence naming changes in drm-next.
>
Series applied to drm-misc; Thanks!

Best,
Sumit.
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel