From: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>
To: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>, Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Cc: Lionel Landwerlin <lionel.g.landwerlin@linux.intel.com>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>,
intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915: Check the timeout passed to i915_wait_request
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2015 11:04:15 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87oaea5yls.fsf@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20151126160655.GN23362@nuc-i3427.alporthouse.com>
On Thu, 26 Nov 2015, Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 03:49:00PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 01:31:42PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
>> > We have relied upon the sole caller (wait_ioctl) validating the timeout
>> > argument. However, when waiting for multiple requests I forgot to ensure
>> > that the timeout was still positive on the later requests. This is more
>> > simply done inside __i915_wait_request.
>> >
>> > Fixes regression introduced in
>> > commit b47161858ba13c9c7e03333132230d66e008dd55
>> > Author: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
>> > Date: Mon Apr 27 13:41:17 2015 +0100
>> >
>> > drm/i915: Implement inter-engine read-read optimisations
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
>> > Cc: Lionel Landwerlin <lionel.g.landwerlin@linux.intel.com>
>> > Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
>> > Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
>> > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
>>
>> Commit message should explain what the actual problem is - we add 1 jiffy
>> of delay for each wait_request, potentially waiting quite a bit longer
>> than what userspace asked for.
>>
>> And not sure this really justifies for cc: stable, since all the wait
>> syscalls reserve the right to wait longer. Of course we should fix it,
>> just to keep validating this possible.
>
> Dropping stable is fine, that was just a knee jerk reaction to finding a
> regression. The impact is 1 jiffie for each extra active ring for a
> wait_ioctl with a timeout -- I don't think anyone has noticed.
Pushed to drm-intel-fixes with some random copy-paste added about the 1
jiffy. Thanks for the patch and review.
BR,
Jani.
--
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center
prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-12-01 9:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-11-26 13:31 [PATCH] drm/i915: Check the timeout passed to i915_wait_request Chris Wilson
2015-11-26 14:49 ` Daniel Vetter
2015-11-26 16:06 ` Chris Wilson
2015-12-01 9:04 ` Jani Nikula [this message]
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=87oaea5yls.fsf@intel.com \
--to=jani.nikula@linux.intel.com \
--cc=chris@chris-wilson.co.uk \
--cc=daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch \
--cc=daniel@ffwll.ch \
--cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=lionel.g.landwerlin@linux.intel.com \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).