From: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
To: "Thomas Hellström" <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>,
intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org
Cc: llvm@lists.linux.dev, oe-kbuild-all@lists.linux.dev,
"Thomas Hellström" <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>,
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, airlied@gmail.com,
"Matthew Brost" <matthew.brost@intel.com>,
"Matthew Auld" <matthew.auld@intel.com>,
"Christian König" <christian.koenig@amd.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] drm/ttm, drm_xe, Implement ttm_lru_walk_for_evict() using the guarded LRU iteration
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2025 02:39:38 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <202506140238.KCnSVmrU-lkp@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250613151824.178650-4-thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>
Hi Thomas,
kernel test robot noticed the following build warnings:
[auto build test WARNING on drm-xe/drm-xe-next]
[also build test WARNING on linus/master v6.16-rc1 next-20250613]
[If your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, kindly drop us a note.
And when submitting patch, we suggest to use '--base' as documented in
https://git-scm.com/docs/git-format-patch#_base_tree_information]
url: https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/Thomas-Hellstr-m/drm-ttm-Use-a-struct-for-the-common-part-of-struct-ttm_lru_walk-and-struct-ttm_bo_lru_cursor/20250613-232106
base: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/xe/kernel.git drm-xe-next
patch link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250613151824.178650-4-thomas.hellstrom%40linux.intel.com
patch subject: [PATCH 3/3] drm/ttm, drm_xe, Implement ttm_lru_walk_for_evict() using the guarded LRU iteration
config: i386-buildonly-randconfig-005-20250613 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20250614/202506140238.KCnSVmrU-lkp@intel.com/config)
compiler: clang version 20.1.2 (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project 58df0ef89dd64126512e4ee27b4ac3fd8ddf6247)
reproduce (this is a W=1 build): (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20250614/202506140238.KCnSVmrU-lkp@intel.com/reproduce)
If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of
the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags
| Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>
| Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202506140238.KCnSVmrU-lkp@intel.com/
All warnings (new ones prefixed by >>):
>> drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo_util.c:965:7: warning: variable 'ret' is used uninitialized whenever 'if' condition is false [-Wsometimes-uninitialized]
965 | if (!bo_locked)
| ^~~~~~~~~~
drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo_util.c:975:8: note: uninitialized use occurs here
975 | if (!ret && bo->resource && bo->resource->mem_type == mem_type)
| ^~~
drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo_util.c:965:3: note: remove the 'if' if its condition is always true
965 | if (!bo_locked)
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
966 | ret = ttm_lru_walk_ticketlock(arg, bo, &curs->needs_unlock);
drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo_util.c:939:20: note: initialize the variable 'ret' to silence this warning
939 | int mem_type, ret;
| ^
| = 0
1 warning generated.
vim +965 drivers/gpu/drm/ttm/ttm_bo_util.c
926
927 static struct ttm_buffer_object *
928 __ttm_bo_lru_cursor_next(struct ttm_bo_lru_cursor *curs, bool first)
929 {
930 spinlock_t *lru_lock = &curs->res_curs.man->bdev->lru_lock;
931 struct ttm_resource *res = NULL;
932 struct ttm_buffer_object *bo;
933 struct ttm_lru_walk_arg *arg = curs->arg;
934
935 ttm_bo_lru_cursor_cleanup_bo(curs);
936
937 spin_lock(lru_lock);
938 for (;;) {
939 int mem_type, ret;
940 bool bo_locked = false;
941
942 if (first) {
943 res = ttm_resource_manager_first(&curs->res_curs);
944 first = false;
945 } else {
946 res = ttm_resource_manager_next(&curs->res_curs);
947 }
948 if (!res)
949 break;
950
951 bo = res->bo;
952 if (ttm_lru_walk_trylock(arg, bo, &curs->needs_unlock))
953 bo_locked = true;
954 else if (!arg->ticket || arg->ctx->no_wait_gpu || arg->trylock_only)
955 continue;
956
957 if (!ttm_bo_get_unless_zero(bo)) {
958 if (curs->needs_unlock)
959 dma_resv_unlock(bo->base.resv);
960 continue;
961 }
962
963 mem_type = res->mem_type;
964 spin_unlock(lru_lock);
> 965 if (!bo_locked)
966 ret = ttm_lru_walk_ticketlock(arg, bo, &curs->needs_unlock);
967 /*
968 * Note that in between the release of the lru lock and the
969 * ticketlock, the bo may have switched resource,
970 * and also memory type, since the resource may have been
971 * freed and allocated again with a different memory type.
972 * In that case, just skip it.
973 */
974 curs->bo = bo;
975 if (!ret && bo->resource && bo->resource->mem_type == mem_type)
976 return bo;
977
978 ttm_bo_lru_cursor_cleanup_bo(curs);
979 if (ret)
980 return ERR_PTR(ret);
981
982 spin_lock(lru_lock);
983 }
984
985 spin_unlock(lru_lock);
986 return res ? bo : NULL;
987 }
988
--
0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service
https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests/wiki
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-06-13 18:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-06-13 15:18 [PATCH 0/3] drm/ttm, drm/xe: Consolidate the Buffer Object LRU walks Thomas Hellström
2025-06-13 15:18 ` [PATCH 1/3] drm/ttm: Use a struct for the common part of struct ttm_lru_walk and struct ttm_bo_lru_cursor Thomas Hellström
2025-06-16 13:04 ` Christian König
2025-06-13 15:18 ` [PATCH 2/3] drm/ttm, drm/xe: Modify the struct ttm_bo_lru_walk_cursor initialization Thomas Hellström
2025-06-16 13:15 ` Christian König
2025-06-13 15:18 ` [PATCH 3/3] drm/ttm, drm_xe, Implement ttm_lru_walk_for_evict() using the guarded LRU iteration Thomas Hellström
2025-06-13 18:39 ` kernel test robot [this message]
2025-06-16 13:23 ` Christian König
2025-06-16 15:29 ` Thomas Hellström
2025-06-18 17:43 ` Dan Carpenter
2025-06-13 17:15 ` ✗ CI.checkpatch: warning for drm/ttm, drm/xe: Consolidate the Buffer Object LRU walks Patchwork
2025-06-13 17:16 ` ✓ CI.KUnit: success " Patchwork
2025-06-13 18:19 ` ✓ Xe.CI.BAT: " Patchwork
2025-06-15 14:51 ` ✓ Xe.CI.Full: " Patchwork
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=202506140238.KCnSVmrU-lkp@intel.com \
--to=lkp@intel.com \
--cc=airlied@gmail.com \
--cc=christian.koenig@amd.com \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=llvm@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=matthew.auld@intel.com \
--cc=matthew.brost@intel.com \
--cc=oe-kbuild-all@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox