All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
To: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org,
	Lionel Landwerlin <lionel.g.landwerlin@linux.intel.com>,
	Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>,
	Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>,
	stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: Check the timeout passed to i915_wait_request
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 15:49:00 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151126144900.GT17050@phenom.ffwll.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1448544702-5594-1-git-send-email-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>

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.

So with the commit message amended and cc: stable dropped this is
Reviewed-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>

> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c | 12 ++++++++++--
>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> index 73c2c48729ec..8c19a980f5e6 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> @@ -1210,8 +1210,16 @@ int __i915_wait_request(struct drm_i915_gem_request *req,
>  	if (i915_gem_request_completed(req, true))
>  		return 0;
>  
> -	timeout_expire = timeout ?
> -		jiffies + nsecs_to_jiffies_timeout((u64)*timeout) : 0;
> +	timeout_expire = 0;
> +	if (timeout) {
> +		if (WARN_ON(*timeout < 0))
> +			return -EINVAL;
> +
> +		if (*timeout == 0)
> +			return -ETIME;
> +
> +		timeout_expire = jiffies + nsecs_to_jiffies_timeout(*timeout);
> +	}
>  
>  	if (INTEL_INFO(dev_priv)->gen >= 6)
>  		gen6_rps_boost(dev_priv, rps, req->emitted_jiffies);
> -- 
> 2.6.2
> 

-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
To: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
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: [PATCH] drm/i915: Check the timeout passed to i915_wait_request
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 15:49:00 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151126144900.GT17050@phenom.ffwll.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1448544702-5594-1-git-send-email-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>

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.

So with the commit message amended and cc: stable dropped this is
Reviewed-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>

> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c | 12 ++++++++++--
>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> index 73c2c48729ec..8c19a980f5e6 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> @@ -1210,8 +1210,16 @@ int __i915_wait_request(struct drm_i915_gem_request *req,
>  	if (i915_gem_request_completed(req, true))
>  		return 0;
>  
> -	timeout_expire = timeout ?
> -		jiffies + nsecs_to_jiffies_timeout((u64)*timeout) : 0;
> +	timeout_expire = 0;
> +	if (timeout) {
> +		if (WARN_ON(*timeout < 0))
> +			return -EINVAL;
> +
> +		if (*timeout == 0)
> +			return -ETIME;
> +
> +		timeout_expire = jiffies + nsecs_to_jiffies_timeout(*timeout);
> +	}
>  
>  	if (INTEL_INFO(dev_priv)->gen >= 6)
>  		gen6_rps_boost(dev_priv, rps, req->emitted_jiffies);
> -- 
> 2.6.2
> 

-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

  reply	other threads:[~2015-11-26 14:49 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ 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 13:31 ` Chris Wilson
2015-11-26 14:49 ` Daniel Vetter [this message]
2015-11-26 14:49   ` Daniel Vetter
2015-11-26 16:06   ` Chris Wilson
2015-12-01  9:04     ` [Intel-gfx] " Jani Nikula
2015-12-01  9:04       ` Jani Nikula

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=20151126144900.GT17050@phenom.ffwll.local \
    --to=daniel@ffwll.ch \
    --cc=chris@chris-wilson.co.uk \
    --cc=daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch \
    --cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=lionel.g.landwerlin@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=tvrtko.ursulin@intel.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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.