Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Use dma_resv_iter for waiting in i915_gem_object_wait_reservation.

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

On 13/10/2021 11:41, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> No memory should be allocated when calling i915_gem_object_wait,
> because it may be called to idle a BO when evicting memory.
> 
> Fix this by using dma_resv_iter helpers to call
> i915_gem_object_wait_fence() on each fence, which cleans up the code a lot.
> Also remove dma_resv_prune, it's questionably.
> 
> This will result in the following lockdep splat.

<snip>

> @@ -37,56 +36,17 @@ i915_gem_object_wait_reservation(struct dma_resv *resv,
>   				 unsigned int flags,
>   				 long timeout)
>   {
> -	struct dma_fence *excl;
> -	bool prune_fences = false;
> -
> -	if (flags & I915_WAIT_ALL) {
> -		struct dma_fence **shared;
> -		unsigned int count, i;
> -		int ret;
> +	struct dma_resv_iter cursor;
> +	struct dma_fence *fence;
>   
> -		ret = dma_resv_get_fences(resv, &excl, &count, &shared);
> -		if (ret)
> -			return ret;
> -
> -		for (i = 0; i < count; i++) {
> -			timeout = i915_gem_object_wait_fence(shared[i],
> -							     flags, timeout);
> -			if (timeout < 0)
> -				break;
> +	dma_resv_iter_begin(&cursor, resv, flags & I915_WAIT_ALL);
> +	dma_resv_for_each_fence_unlocked(&cursor, fence) {
>   
> -			dma_fence_put(shared[i]);
> -		}
> -
> -		for (; i < count; i++)
> -			dma_fence_put(shared[i]);
> -		kfree(shared);
> -
> -		/*
> -		 * If both shared fences and an exclusive fence exist,
> -		 * then by construction the shared fences must be later
> -		 * than the exclusive fence. If we successfully wait for
> -		 * all the shared fences, we know that the exclusive fence
> -		 * must all be signaled. If all the shared fences are
> -		 * signaled, we can prune the array and recover the
> -		 * floating references on the fences/requests.
> -		 */
> -		prune_fences = count && timeout >= 0;
> -	} else {
> -		excl = dma_resv_get_excl_unlocked(resv);
> +		timeout = i915_gem_object_wait_fence(fence, flags, timeout);
> +		if (timeout <= 0)
> +			break;

You have another change in behaviour here, well a bug really. When 
userspace passes in zero timeout you fail to report activity in other 
than the first fence.

Regards,

Tvrtko