Chris Wilson <[email protected]> writes:

> Currently, we may simultaneously release the fence register from both
> fence_update() and i915_gem_restore_fences(). This is dangerous, so
> defer the bookkeeping entirely to i915_gem_restore_fences() when the
> device is asleep.
>
> Reported-by: Mika Kuoppala <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <[email protected]>
> Cc: Mika Kuoppala <[email protected]>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_fence_reg.c | 62 ++++++++++++-----------
>  1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_fence_reg.c 
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_fence_reg.c
> index e037e94792f3..be89bd95ab7c 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_fence_reg.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem_fence_reg.c
> @@ -210,6 +210,7 @@ static int fence_update(struct drm_i915_fence_reg *fence,
>                       struct i915_vma *vma)
>  {
>       intel_wakeref_t wakeref;
> +     struct i915_vma *old;
>       int ret;
>  
>       if (vma) {
> @@ -229,49 +230,55 @@ static int fence_update(struct drm_i915_fence_reg 
> *fence,
>                       return ret;
>       }
>  
> -     if (fence->vma) {
> -             struct i915_vma *old = fence->vma;
> -
> +     old = xchg(&fence->vma, NULL);

So this is for restore seeing fence consistently.

> +     if (old) {
>               ret = i915_active_request_retire(&old->last_fence,
>                                            &old->obj->base.dev->struct_mutex);
> -             if (ret)
> +             if (ret) {
> +                     fence->vma = old;

And this then won't matter as the restore fences had zeroed
the fence reg before error. We get back to exact state
later but when?

>                       return ret;
> +             }
>  
>               i915_vma_flush_writes(old);
> -     }
>  
> -     if (fence->vma && fence->vma != vma) {
> -             /* Ensure that all userspace CPU access is completed before
> +             /*
> +              * Ensure that all userspace CPU access is completed before
>                * stealing the fence.
>                */
> -             GEM_BUG_ON(fence->vma->fence != fence);
> -             i915_vma_revoke_mmap(fence->vma);
> -
> -             fence->vma->fence = NULL;
> -             fence->vma = NULL;
> +             if (old != vma) {
> +                     GEM_BUG_ON(old->fence != fence);
> +                     i915_vma_revoke_mmap(old);
> +                     old->fence = NULL;
> +             }
>  
>               list_move(&fence->link, &fence->i915->mm.fence_list);
>       }
>  
> -     /* We only need to update the register itself if the device is awake.
> +     /*
> +      * We only need to update the register itself if the device is awake.
>        * If the device is currently powered down, we will defer the write
>        * to the runtime resume, see i915_gem_restore_fences().
> +      *
> +      * This only works for removing the fence register, on acquisition
> +      * the caller must hold the rpm wakeref. The fence register must
> +      * be cleared before we can use any other fences to ensure that
> +      * the new fences do not overlap the elided clears, confusing HW.
>        */
>       wakeref = intel_runtime_pm_get_if_in_use(fence->i915);
> -     if (wakeref) {
> -             fence_write(fence, vma);
> -             intel_runtime_pm_put(fence->i915, wakeref);
> +     if (!wakeref) {
> +             GEM_BUG_ON(vma);
> +             return 0;
>       }
>  
> -     if (vma) {
> -             if (fence->vma != vma) {
> -                     vma->fence = fence;
> -                     fence->vma = vma;
> -             }
> +     fence_write(fence, vma);
> +     fence->vma = vma;
>  
> +     if (vma) {
> +             vma->fence = fence;
>               list_move_tail(&fence->link, &fence->i915->mm.fence_list);
>       }
>  
> +     intel_runtime_pm_put(fence->i915, wakeref);
>       return 0;
>  }
>  
> @@ -473,9 +480,10 @@ void i915_gem_restore_fences(struct drm_i915_private 
> *dev_priv)
>  {
>       int i;
>  
> +     rcu_read_lock(); /* keep obj alive as we dereference */
>       for (i = 0; i < dev_priv->num_fence_regs; i++) {
>               struct drm_i915_fence_reg *reg = &dev_priv->fence_regs[i];

I do have spent some amount of time to try to figure out if
there is a reasoning of sometimes calling the fence reg as 'fence'
and in other cases 'reg'.

If there is a reason, help me out. If there is not, I
politely ask to follow the same naming than in revoke_fences.

Or that we go for 'fence_reg' always when talking about
preallocated reg slots.

> -             struct i915_vma *vma = reg->vma;
> +             struct i915_vma *vma = READ_ONCE(reg->vma);
>  
>               GEM_BUG_ON(vma && vma->fence != reg);
>  
> @@ -483,18 +491,12 @@ void i915_gem_restore_fences(struct drm_i915_private 
> *dev_priv)
>                * Commit delayed tiling changes if we have an object still
>                * attached to the fence, otherwise just clear the fence.
>                */
> -             if (vma && !i915_gem_object_is_tiled(vma->obj)) {
> -                     GEM_BUG_ON(!reg->dirty);

You omit the dirty check here. If the reasoning is
that we can't sample due to inconstency wrt rest of fence reg,
does it then lead to need to make a __fence_write()
that does not write the dirty flag.

For making sure that for next pin won't drop the write?

> -                     GEM_BUG_ON(i915_vma_has_userfault(vma));
> -
> -                     list_move(&reg->link, &dev_priv->mm.fence_list);

This makes life easier.

> -                     vma->fence = NULL;
> +             if (vma && !i915_gem_object_is_tiled(vma->obj))
>                       vma = NULL;
> -             }
>  
>               fence_write(reg, vma);
> -             reg->vma = vma;
>       }
> +     rcu_read_unlock();
>  }
>  
>  /**
> -- 
> 2.20.1
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Reply via email to