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
next prev parent 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: linkBe 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.