From: "Danilo Krummrich" <dakr@kernel.org>
To: "Tvrtko Ursulin" <tvrtko.ursulin@igalia.com>
Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, kernel-dev@igalia.com,
intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org, amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org,
"Christian König" <christian.koenig@amd.com>,
"Maíra Canal" <mcanal@igalia.com>,
"Matthew Brost" <matthew.brost@intel.com>,
"Philipp Stanner" <phasta@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/sched: Consolidate drm_sched_job_timedout
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2025 12:19:51 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <DBE95ZE9P9Y8.3FUVSD95O9CGJ@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250716144832.62494-1-tvrtko.ursulin@igalia.com>
On Wed Jul 16, 2025 at 4:48 PM CEST, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> Reduce to one spin_unlock for hopefully a little bit clearer flow in the
> function. It may appear that there is a behavioural change with the
> drm_sched_start_timeout_unlocked() now not being called if there were
> initially no jobs on the pending list, and then some appeared after
> unlock, however if the code would rely on the TDR handler restarting
> itself then it would fail to do that if the job arrived on the pending
> list after the check.
To me this patch comes down to "don't call drm_sched_start_timeout_unlocked()
when the pending list is empty".
That's the whole premise for the early return the patch is based on.
The commit subject / message makes this more of a side note and when I read it,
it wasn't obvious to me why that's correct.
Can you please emphasise this a bit more, since that's really the actual change,
and make it more clear why drm_sched_start_timeout_unlocked() only needs to be
called when we actually find a job on the pending list.
The reason you mention in the commit message "if the code would rely on the TDR
handler restarting itself then it would fail to do that if the job arrived on
the pending list after the check" reads more like "the approch can't work
anyways, hence remove it". That's not a justification why removing it is correct
though.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-07-17 10:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-07-16 14:48 [PATCH] drm/sched: Consolidate drm_sched_job_timedout Tvrtko Ursulin
2025-07-16 17:45 ` ✓ CI.KUnit: success for " Patchwork
2025-07-16 19:27 ` ✓ Xe.CI.BAT: " Patchwork
2025-07-16 20:53 ` [PATCH] " Maíra Canal
2025-07-17 10:19 ` Danilo Krummrich [this message]
2025-07-17 14:52 ` ✗ Xe.CI.Full: failure for " 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=DBE95ZE9P9Y8.3FUVSD95O9CGJ@kernel.org \
--to=dakr@kernel.org \
--cc=amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=christian.koenig@amd.com \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=kernel-dev@igalia.com \
--cc=matthew.brost@intel.com \
--cc=mcanal@igalia.com \
--cc=phasta@kernel.org \
--cc=tvrtko.ursulin@igalia.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