On 26/04/2017 11:15, Chris Wilson wrote:
Now that we try to signal the fence from inside the interrupt handler,
when we reach the signaler thread, the fence is most likely already
signaled. Skip manipulating the bottom-half locks if this is so.
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursu...@intel.com>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_breadcrumbs.c | 9 ++++++---
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_breadcrumbs.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_breadcrumbs.c
index 8f52fd5f6102..5f79c8135b3f 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_breadcrumbs.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_breadcrumbs.c
@@ -616,9 +616,12 @@ static int intel_breadcrumbs_signaler(void *arg)
request = i915_gem_request_get_rcu(request);
rcu_read_unlock();
if (signal_complete(request)) {
- local_bh_disable();
- dma_fence_signal(&request->fence);
- local_bh_enable(); /* kick start the tasklets */
+ if (!test_bit(DMA_FENCE_FLAG_SIGNALED_BIT,
+ &request->fence.flags)) {
+ local_bh_disable();
+ dma_fence_signal(&request->fence);
+ local_bh_enable(); /* kick start the tasklet */
+ }
spin_lock_irq(&b->rb_lock);
What are you referring to by "bottom-half locks" in the commit msg?
AFAICS it would only skip kicking the tasklets with this change. That
may be worth it, I haven't measured, but I don't see a difference wrt
any locks.
In fact we could change this to:
if (!dma_fence_signal(...)) {
local_bh_disable();
local_bh_enable();
}
If we wanted to avoid touching the flags directly, but then would have a
function call..
Regards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
