lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [May]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [RFC 01/17] dma-fence: add might_sleep annotation to _wait()
From
Date
Am 12.05.20 um 10:59 schrieb Daniel Vetter:
> But only for non-zero timeout, to avoid false positives.
>
> One question here is whether the might_sleep should be unconditional,
> or only for real timeouts. I'm not sure, so went with the more
> defensive option. But in the interest of locking down the cross-driver
> dma_fence rules we might want to be more aggressive.
>
> Cc: linux-media@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org
> Cc: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>
> Cc: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c | 3 +++
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c
> index 052a41e2451c..6802125349fb 100644
> --- a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c
> +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence.c
> @@ -208,6 +208,9 @@ dma_fence_wait_timeout(struct dma_fence *fence, bool intr, signed long timeout)
> if (WARN_ON(timeout < 0))
> return -EINVAL;
>
> + if (timeout > 0)
> + might_sleep();
> +

I would rather like to see might_sleep() called here all the time even
with timeout==0.

IIRC I removed the code in TTM abusing this in atomic context quite a
while ago, but could be that some leaked in again or it is called in
atomic context elsewhere as well.

Christian.

> trace_dma_fence_wait_start(fence);
> if (fence->ops->wait)
> ret = fence->ops->wait(fence, intr, timeout);

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-05-12 11:09    [W:0.218 / U:0.380 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site