Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 3/6] drm/i915: Handle async cancellation in sentinel assert

[Matthew Auld <matthew.william.auld@gmail.com>]

On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 at 17:04, Tvrtko Ursulin
<tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
>
> With the watchdog cancelling requests asynchronously to preempt-to-busy we
> need to relax one assert making it apply only to requests not in error.
>
> v2:
>  * Check against the correct request!
>
> Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c | 7 +++++++
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c
> index 4b870eca9693..bf557290173a 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c
> @@ -815,6 +815,13 @@ assert_pending_valid(const struct intel_engine_execlists *execlists,
>                 spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rq->lock, flags);
>                 if (!ok)
>                         return false;
> +
> +               /*
> +                * Due async nature of preempt-to-busy and request cancellation

Due to the

> +                * we need to skip further asserts for cancelled requests.
> +                */
> +               if (READ_ONCE(rq->fence.error))
> +                       break;

If the above trylock fails, I guess we end up skipping this? Maybe add
an explicit goto label to handle the skip here?

>         }
>
>         return ce;
> --
> 2.27.0
>
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel