Re: [PATCH 1/3] drm/i915: Only update the current userptr worker

[Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com>]

On 06/30/2015 05:55 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
> The userptr worker allows for a slight race condition where upon there
> may two or more threads calling get_user_pages for the same object. When
> we have the array of pages, then we serialise the update of the object.
> However, the worker should only overwrite the obj->userptr.work pointer
> if and only if it is the active one. Currently we clear it for a
> secondary worker with the effect that we may rarely force a second
> lookup.

Secondary worker can fire only if invalidate clears the current one, no? 
(if (obj->userptr.work == NULL && ...))

It then "cancels" the worker so that the st_set_pages path is avoided.

> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> ---
>   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_userptr.c | 16 ++++++++--------
>   1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_userptr.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_userptr.c
> index 7a5242cd5ea5..cb367d9f7909 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_userptr.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_userptr.c
> @@ -581,17 +581,17 @@ __i915_gem_userptr_get_pages_worker(struct work_struct *_work)
>   	}
>
>   	mutex_lock(&dev->struct_mutex);
> -	if (obj->userptr.work != &work->work) {
> -		ret = 0;
> -	} else if (pinned == num_pages) {
> -		ret = st_set_pages(&obj->pages, pvec, num_pages);
> -		if (ret == 0) {
> -			list_add_tail(&obj->global_list, &to_i915(dev)->mm.unbound_list);
> -			pinned = 0;
> +	if (obj->userptr.work == &work->work) {
> +		if (pinned == num_pages) {
> +			ret = st_set_pages(&obj->pages, pvec, num_pages);
> +			if (ret == 0) {
> +				list_add_tail(&obj->global_list, &to_i915(dev)->mm.unbound_list);
> +				pinned = 0;
> +			}
>   		}
> +		obj->userptr.work = ERR_PTR(ret);
>   	}
>
> -	obj->userptr.work = ERR_PTR(ret);
>   	obj->userptr.workers--;
>   	drm_gem_object_unreference(&obj->base);
>   	mutex_unlock(&dev->struct_mutex);

Previously the canceled worker would allow another worker to be created 
in case it failed (obj->userptr.work != &work->work; ret = 0;) and now 
it still does since obj->userptr.work remains at NULL from cancellation.

Both seem wrong, am I missing the change?

Regards,

Tvrtko




_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx