Re: [PATCH 2/6] amd/amdkfd: Ignore return code of dma_fence_signal()

[Philipp Stanner <phasta@mailbox.org>]

On Thu, 2025-11-27 at 10:08 -0500, Kuehling, Felix wrote:
> On 2025-11-27 04:55, Christian König wrote:
> > On 11/27/25 10:48, Philipp Stanner wrote:
> > > 

[…]

> > > The issue now is that dma_fence_signal()'s return code is actually non-
> > > racy, because check + bit-set are protected by lock.
> > > 
> > > Christian's new spinlock series would add a lock function for fences:
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/dri-devel/20251113145332.16805-5-christian.koenig@amd.com/
> > > 
> > > 
> > > So I suppose this should work:
> > > 
> > > dma_fence_lock_irqsave(ef, flags);
> > > if (dma_fence_test_signaled_flag(ef)) {
> > > 	dma_fence_unlock_irqrestore(ef, flags);
> > > 	return true;
> > > }
> > > dma_fence_signal_locked(ef);
> > > dma_fence_unlock_irqrestore(ef, flags);
> > > 
> > > return false;
> > > 
> > > 
> > > + some cosmetic adjustments for the boolean of course.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Would that fly and be reasonable? @Felix, Christian.
> > I was just about to reply with the same idea when your mail arrived.
> 
> I agree as well. The important feature is that we need to test and 
> signal the fence atomically. It may even make sense to add a function
> for that "dma_fence_test_and_signal" that preserves the original 
> behaviour of dma_fence_signal. ;)

Fine by me if the maintainer agrees

P.