From: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> To: "Christian König" <ckoenig.leichtzumerken@gmail.com> Cc: linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-media@vger.kernel.org, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, daniel@ffwll.ch Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/26] dma-buf: add dma_resv_for_each_fence_unlocked v2 Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2021 15:23:26 +0200 [thread overview] Message-ID: <YUSWzm+TjD7GHHO5@phenom.ffwll.local> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20210917123513.1106-2-christian.koenig@amd.com> On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 02:34:48PM +0200, Christian König wrote: > Abstract the complexity of iterating over all the fences > in a dma_resv object. > > The new loop handles the whole RCU and retry dance and > returns only fences where we can be sure we grabbed the > right one. > > v2: fix accessing the shared fences while they might be freed, > improve kerneldoc, rename _cursor to _iter, add > dma_resv_iter_is_exclusive, add dma_resv_iter_begin/end > > Signed-off-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com> > --- > drivers/dma-buf/dma-resv.c | 61 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > include/linux/dma-resv.h | 84 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 2 files changed, 145 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-resv.c b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-resv.c > index 84fbe60629e3..3e77cad2c9d4 100644 > --- a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-resv.c > +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-resv.c > @@ -323,6 +323,67 @@ void dma_resv_add_excl_fence(struct dma_resv *obj, struct dma_fence *fence) > } > EXPORT_SYMBOL(dma_resv_add_excl_fence); > > +/** > + * dma_resv_iter_walk_unlocked - walk over fences in a dma_resv obj > + * @cursor: cursor to record the current position > + * @first: if we should start over > + * > + * Return all the fences in the dma_resv object which are not yet signaled. > + * The returned fence has an extra local reference so will stay alive. > + * If a concurrent modify is detected the whole iterration is started over again. > + */ > +struct dma_fence *dma_resv_iter_walk_unlocked(struct dma_resv_iter *cursor, Bit ocd, but I'd still just call that iter_next. > + bool first) Hm I'd put all the init code into iter_begin ... > +{ > + struct dma_resv *obj = cursor->obj; Aren't we missing rcu_read_lock() around the entire thing here? > + > + first |= read_seqcount_retry(&obj->seq, cursor->seq); > + do { > + /* Drop the reference from the previous round */ > + dma_fence_put(cursor->fence); > + > + cursor->is_first = first; > + if (first) { > + cursor->seq = read_seqcount_begin(&obj->seq); > + cursor->index = -1; > + cursor->fences = dma_resv_shared_list(obj); And then also call iter_begin from here. That way we guarantee that read_seqcount_begin is always called before _retry(). It's not a problem with the seqcount implementation (I think at least), but it definitely looks funny. Calling iter_begin here also makes it clear that we're essentially restarting. > + > + cursor->fence = dma_resv_excl_fence(obj); > + if (cursor->fence && > + test_bit(DMA_FENCE_FLAG_SIGNALED_BIT, Please use the right dma_fence wrapper here for this and don't look at the bits/flags outside of dma_fence.[hc] code. I just realized that we don't have the right amount of barriers in there for the fastpath, i.e. if we have: x = 0; /* static initializer */ thread a x = 1; dma_fence_signal(fence); thread b; if (dma_fence_is_signalled(fence)) printk("%i\n", x); Then you might actually be able to observe x == 0 in thread b. Which is not what we want at all. So no open-coding of dma_fence flag bits code outside of drm_fence.[hc] please. And yes i915-gem code is unfortunately a disaster. > + &cursor->fence->flags)) > + cursor->fence = NULL; > + } else { > + cursor->fence = NULL; > + } > + > + if (cursor->fence) { > + cursor->fence = dma_fence_get_rcu(cursor->fence); > + } else if (cursor->all_fences && cursor->fences) { > + struct dma_resv_list *fences = cursor->fences; > + > + while (++cursor->index < fences->shared_count) { > + cursor->fence = rcu_dereference( > + fences->shared[cursor->index]); > + if (!test_bit(DMA_FENCE_FLAG_SIGNALED_BIT, > + &cursor->fence->flags)) > + break; > + } > + if (cursor->index < fences->shared_count) > + cursor->fence = > + dma_fence_get_rcu(cursor->fence); > + else > + cursor->fence = NULL; > + } The control flow here is very hairy, but I'm not sure how to best do this. With my suggestion to move the read_seqcount_begin into iter_begin maybe something like this: iter_next() { do { dma_fence_put(cursor->fence) cursor->fence = NULL; if (cursor->index == -1) { /* reset by iter_begin() cursor->fence = get_exclusive(); cusor->index++; } else { cursor->fence = shared_fences[++cursor->index] } if (!dma_fence_is_signalled(cursor->fence)) continue; /* just grab the next fence. */ cursor->fence = dma_fence_get_rcu(cursor->fence); if (!cursor->fence || read_seqcount_retry()) { /* we lost the race, restart completely */ iter_begin(); /* ->fence will be cleaned up at beginning of the loop */ continue; } return cursor->fence; } while (true); } Maybe I missed something, but that avoids the duplication of all the tricky code, i.e. checking for signalling, rcu protected conditional fence_get, and the retry is also nicely at the end. > + > + /* For the eventually next round */ > + first = true; > + } while (read_seqcount_retry(&obj->seq, cursor->seq)); > + > + return cursor->fence; > +} > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(dma_resv_iter_walk_unlocked); > + > /** > * dma_resv_copy_fences - Copy all fences from src to dst. > * @dst: the destination reservation object > diff --git a/include/linux/dma-resv.h b/include/linux/dma-resv.h > index 9100dd3dc21f..693d16117153 100644 > --- a/include/linux/dma-resv.h > +++ b/include/linux/dma-resv.h > @@ -149,6 +149,90 @@ struct dma_resv { > struct dma_resv_list __rcu *fence; > }; > > +/** > + * struct dma_resv_iter - current position into the dma_resv fences > + * > + * Don't touch this directly in the driver, use the accessor function instead. > + */ > +struct dma_resv_iter { > + /** @obj: The dma_resv object we iterate over */ > + struct dma_resv *obj; > + > + /** @all_fences: If all fences should be returned */ > + bool all_fences; > + > + /** @fence: the currently handled fence */ > + struct dma_fence *fence; > + > + /** @seq: sequence number to check for modifications */ > + unsigned int seq; > + > + /** @index: index into the shared fences */ If you go with my suggestion (assuming it works): Please add "-1 indicates to pick the exclusive fence instead." > + unsigned int index; > + > + /** @fences: the shared fences */ > + struct dma_resv_list *fences; > + > + /** @is_first: true if this is the first returned fence */ > + bool is_first; I think if we just rely on -1 == exclusive fence/is_first we don't need this one here? > +}; > + > +struct dma_fence *dma_resv_iter_walk_unlocked(struct dma_resv_iter *cursor, > + bool first); > + > +/** > + * dma_resv_iter_begin - initialize a dma_resv_iter object > + * @cursor: The dma_resv_iter object to initialize > + * @obj: The dma_resv object which we want to iterator over > + * @all_fences: If all fences should be returned or just the exclusive one Please add: "Callers must clean up the iterator with dma_resv_iter_end()." > + */ > +static inline void dma_resv_iter_begin(struct dma_resv_iter *cursor, > + struct dma_resv *obj, > + bool all_fences) > +{ > + cursor->obj = obj; > + cursor->all_fences = all_fences; > + cursor->fence = NULL; > +} > + > +/** > + * dma_resv_iter_end - cleanup a dma_resv_iter object > + * @cursor: the dma_resv_iter object which should be cleaned up > + * > + * Make sure that the reference to the fence in the cursor is properly > + * dropped. Please add: "This function must be called every time dma_resv_iter_begin() was called to clean up any references." > + */ > +static inline void dma_resv_iter_end(struct dma_resv_iter *cursor) > +{ > + dma_fence_put(cursor->fence); > +} > + > +/** > + * dma_resv_iter_is_exclusive - test if the current fence is the exclusive one > + * @cursor: the cursor of the current position > + * > + * Returns true if the currently returned fence is the exclusive one. > + */ > +static inline bool dma_resv_iter_is_exclusive(struct dma_resv_iter *cursor) > +{ > + return cursor->index == -1; > +} > + > +/** > + * dma_resv_for_each_fence_unlocked - unlocked fence iterator > + * @cursor: a struct dma_resv_iter pointer > + * @fence: the current fence > + * > + * Iterate over the fences in a struct dma_resv object without holding the > + * dma_resv::lock. The RCU read side lock must be hold when using this, but can > + * be dropped and re-taken as necessary inside the loop. The cursor needs to be > + * initialized with dma_resv_iter_begin_unlocked() and cleaned up with We don't have an _unlocked version? > + * dma_resv_iter_end_unlocked(). > + */ > +#define dma_resv_for_each_fence_unlocked(cursor, fence) \ > + for (fence = dma_resv_iter_walk_unlocked(cursor, true); \ > + fence; fence = dma_resv_iter_walk_unlocked(cursor, false)) > + > #define dma_resv_held(obj) lockdep_is_held(&(obj)->lock.base) > #define dma_resv_assert_held(obj) lockdep_assert_held(&(obj)->lock.base) > > -- > 2.25.1 > -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID
From: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> To: "Christian König" <ckoenig.leichtzumerken@gmail.com> Cc: linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-media@vger.kernel.org, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, daniel@ffwll.ch Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 01/26] dma-buf: add dma_resv_for_each_fence_unlocked v2 Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2021 15:23:26 +0200 [thread overview] Message-ID: <YUSWzm+TjD7GHHO5@phenom.ffwll.local> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20210917123513.1106-2-christian.koenig@amd.com> On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 02:34:48PM +0200, Christian König wrote: > Abstract the complexity of iterating over all the fences > in a dma_resv object. > > The new loop handles the whole RCU and retry dance and > returns only fences where we can be sure we grabbed the > right one. > > v2: fix accessing the shared fences while they might be freed, > improve kerneldoc, rename _cursor to _iter, add > dma_resv_iter_is_exclusive, add dma_resv_iter_begin/end > > Signed-off-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com> > --- > drivers/dma-buf/dma-resv.c | 61 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > include/linux/dma-resv.h | 84 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 2 files changed, 145 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-resv.c b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-resv.c > index 84fbe60629e3..3e77cad2c9d4 100644 > --- a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-resv.c > +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-resv.c > @@ -323,6 +323,67 @@ void dma_resv_add_excl_fence(struct dma_resv *obj, struct dma_fence *fence) > } > EXPORT_SYMBOL(dma_resv_add_excl_fence); > > +/** > + * dma_resv_iter_walk_unlocked - walk over fences in a dma_resv obj > + * @cursor: cursor to record the current position > + * @first: if we should start over > + * > + * Return all the fences in the dma_resv object which are not yet signaled. > + * The returned fence has an extra local reference so will stay alive. > + * If a concurrent modify is detected the whole iterration is started over again. > + */ > +struct dma_fence *dma_resv_iter_walk_unlocked(struct dma_resv_iter *cursor, Bit ocd, but I'd still just call that iter_next. > + bool first) Hm I'd put all the init code into iter_begin ... > +{ > + struct dma_resv *obj = cursor->obj; Aren't we missing rcu_read_lock() around the entire thing here? > + > + first |= read_seqcount_retry(&obj->seq, cursor->seq); > + do { > + /* Drop the reference from the previous round */ > + dma_fence_put(cursor->fence); > + > + cursor->is_first = first; > + if (first) { > + cursor->seq = read_seqcount_begin(&obj->seq); > + cursor->index = -1; > + cursor->fences = dma_resv_shared_list(obj); And then also call iter_begin from here. That way we guarantee that read_seqcount_begin is always called before _retry(). It's not a problem with the seqcount implementation (I think at least), but it definitely looks funny. Calling iter_begin here also makes it clear that we're essentially restarting. > + > + cursor->fence = dma_resv_excl_fence(obj); > + if (cursor->fence && > + test_bit(DMA_FENCE_FLAG_SIGNALED_BIT, Please use the right dma_fence wrapper here for this and don't look at the bits/flags outside of dma_fence.[hc] code. I just realized that we don't have the right amount of barriers in there for the fastpath, i.e. if we have: x = 0; /* static initializer */ thread a x = 1; dma_fence_signal(fence); thread b; if (dma_fence_is_signalled(fence)) printk("%i\n", x); Then you might actually be able to observe x == 0 in thread b. Which is not what we want at all. So no open-coding of dma_fence flag bits code outside of drm_fence.[hc] please. And yes i915-gem code is unfortunately a disaster. > + &cursor->fence->flags)) > + cursor->fence = NULL; > + } else { > + cursor->fence = NULL; > + } > + > + if (cursor->fence) { > + cursor->fence = dma_fence_get_rcu(cursor->fence); > + } else if (cursor->all_fences && cursor->fences) { > + struct dma_resv_list *fences = cursor->fences; > + > + while (++cursor->index < fences->shared_count) { > + cursor->fence = rcu_dereference( > + fences->shared[cursor->index]); > + if (!test_bit(DMA_FENCE_FLAG_SIGNALED_BIT, > + &cursor->fence->flags)) > + break; > + } > + if (cursor->index < fences->shared_count) > + cursor->fence = > + dma_fence_get_rcu(cursor->fence); > + else > + cursor->fence = NULL; > + } The control flow here is very hairy, but I'm not sure how to best do this. With my suggestion to move the read_seqcount_begin into iter_begin maybe something like this: iter_next() { do { dma_fence_put(cursor->fence) cursor->fence = NULL; if (cursor->index == -1) { /* reset by iter_begin() cursor->fence = get_exclusive(); cusor->index++; } else { cursor->fence = shared_fences[++cursor->index] } if (!dma_fence_is_signalled(cursor->fence)) continue; /* just grab the next fence. */ cursor->fence = dma_fence_get_rcu(cursor->fence); if (!cursor->fence || read_seqcount_retry()) { /* we lost the race, restart completely */ iter_begin(); /* ->fence will be cleaned up at beginning of the loop */ continue; } return cursor->fence; } while (true); } Maybe I missed something, but that avoids the duplication of all the tricky code, i.e. checking for signalling, rcu protected conditional fence_get, and the retry is also nicely at the end. > + > + /* For the eventually next round */ > + first = true; > + } while (read_seqcount_retry(&obj->seq, cursor->seq)); > + > + return cursor->fence; > +} > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(dma_resv_iter_walk_unlocked); > + > /** > * dma_resv_copy_fences - Copy all fences from src to dst. > * @dst: the destination reservation object > diff --git a/include/linux/dma-resv.h b/include/linux/dma-resv.h > index 9100dd3dc21f..693d16117153 100644 > --- a/include/linux/dma-resv.h > +++ b/include/linux/dma-resv.h > @@ -149,6 +149,90 @@ struct dma_resv { > struct dma_resv_list __rcu *fence; > }; > > +/** > + * struct dma_resv_iter - current position into the dma_resv fences > + * > + * Don't touch this directly in the driver, use the accessor function instead. > + */ > +struct dma_resv_iter { > + /** @obj: The dma_resv object we iterate over */ > + struct dma_resv *obj; > + > + /** @all_fences: If all fences should be returned */ > + bool all_fences; > + > + /** @fence: the currently handled fence */ > + struct dma_fence *fence; > + > + /** @seq: sequence number to check for modifications */ > + unsigned int seq; > + > + /** @index: index into the shared fences */ If you go with my suggestion (assuming it works): Please add "-1 indicates to pick the exclusive fence instead." > + unsigned int index; > + > + /** @fences: the shared fences */ > + struct dma_resv_list *fences; > + > + /** @is_first: true if this is the first returned fence */ > + bool is_first; I think if we just rely on -1 == exclusive fence/is_first we don't need this one here? > +}; > + > +struct dma_fence *dma_resv_iter_walk_unlocked(struct dma_resv_iter *cursor, > + bool first); > + > +/** > + * dma_resv_iter_begin - initialize a dma_resv_iter object > + * @cursor: The dma_resv_iter object to initialize > + * @obj: The dma_resv object which we want to iterator over > + * @all_fences: If all fences should be returned or just the exclusive one Please add: "Callers must clean up the iterator with dma_resv_iter_end()." > + */ > +static inline void dma_resv_iter_begin(struct dma_resv_iter *cursor, > + struct dma_resv *obj, > + bool all_fences) > +{ > + cursor->obj = obj; > + cursor->all_fences = all_fences; > + cursor->fence = NULL; > +} > + > +/** > + * dma_resv_iter_end - cleanup a dma_resv_iter object > + * @cursor: the dma_resv_iter object which should be cleaned up > + * > + * Make sure that the reference to the fence in the cursor is properly > + * dropped. Please add: "This function must be called every time dma_resv_iter_begin() was called to clean up any references." > + */ > +static inline void dma_resv_iter_end(struct dma_resv_iter *cursor) > +{ > + dma_fence_put(cursor->fence); > +} > + > +/** > + * dma_resv_iter_is_exclusive - test if the current fence is the exclusive one > + * @cursor: the cursor of the current position > + * > + * Returns true if the currently returned fence is the exclusive one. > + */ > +static inline bool dma_resv_iter_is_exclusive(struct dma_resv_iter *cursor) > +{ > + return cursor->index == -1; > +} > + > +/** > + * dma_resv_for_each_fence_unlocked - unlocked fence iterator > + * @cursor: a struct dma_resv_iter pointer > + * @fence: the current fence > + * > + * Iterate over the fences in a struct dma_resv object without holding the > + * dma_resv::lock. The RCU read side lock must be hold when using this, but can > + * be dropped and re-taken as necessary inside the loop. The cursor needs to be > + * initialized with dma_resv_iter_begin_unlocked() and cleaned up with We don't have an _unlocked version? > + * dma_resv_iter_end_unlocked(). > + */ > +#define dma_resv_for_each_fence_unlocked(cursor, fence) \ > + for (fence = dma_resv_iter_walk_unlocked(cursor, true); \ > + fence; fence = dma_resv_iter_walk_unlocked(cursor, false)) > + > #define dma_resv_held(obj) lockdep_is_held(&(obj)->lock.base) > #define dma_resv_assert_held(obj) lockdep_assert_held(&(obj)->lock.base) > > -- > 2.25.1 > -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-09-17 13:23 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 116+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2021-09-17 12:34 Deploying new iterator interface for dma-buf Christian König 2021-09-17 12:34 ` [Intel-gfx] " Christian König 2021-09-17 12:34 ` [PATCH 01/26] dma-buf: add dma_resv_for_each_fence_unlocked v2 Christian König 2021-09-17 12:34 ` [Intel-gfx] " Christian König 2021-09-17 13:23 ` Daniel Vetter [this message] 2021-09-17 13:23 ` Daniel Vetter 2021-09-20 8:43 ` Tvrtko Ursulin 2021-09-20 10:09 ` Christian König 2021-09-20 10:26 ` Tvrtko Ursulin 2021-09-17 12:34 ` [PATCH 02/26] dma-buf: add dma_resv_for_each_fence Christian König 2021-09-17 12:34 ` [Intel-gfx] " Christian König 2021-09-17 13:27 ` Daniel Vetter 2021-09-17 13:27 ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter 2021-09-17 14:30 ` Daniel Vetter 2021-09-17 14:30 ` Daniel Vetter 2021-09-17 12:34 ` [PATCH 03/26] dma-buf: use new iterator in dma_resv_copy_fences Christian König 2021-09-17 12:34 ` [Intel-gfx] " Christian König 2021-09-17 14:35 ` Daniel Vetter 2021-09-17 14:35 ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter 2021-09-20 7:23 ` Christian König 2021-09-20 7:23 ` [Intel-gfx] " Christian König 2021-09-17 12:34 ` [PATCH 04/26] dma-buf: use new iterator in dma_resv_get_fences v2 Christian König 2021-09-17 12:34 ` [Intel-gfx] " Christian König 2021-09-17 14:39 ` Daniel Vetter 2021-09-17 14:39 ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter 2021-09-17 12:34 ` [PATCH 05/26] dma-buf: use new iterator in dma_resv_wait_timeout Christian König 2021-09-17 12:34 ` [Intel-gfx] " Christian König 2021-09-17 14:43 ` Daniel Vetter 2021-09-17 14:43 ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter 2021-09-20 7:27 ` Christian König 2021-09-20 7:27 ` [Intel-gfx] " Christian König 2021-09-17 12:34 ` [PATCH 06/26] dma-buf: use new iterator in dma_resv_test_signaled Christian König 2021-09-17 12:34 ` [Intel-gfx] " Christian König 2021-09-17 14:45 ` Daniel Vetter 2021-09-17 14:45 ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter 2021-09-17 12:34 ` [PATCH 07/26] drm/ttm: use the new iterator in ttm_bo_flush_all_fences Christian König 2021-09-17 12:34 ` [Intel-gfx] " Christian König 2021-09-17 14:50 ` Daniel Vetter 2021-09-17 14:50 ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter 2021-09-17 12:34 ` [PATCH 08/26] drm/amdgpu: use the new iterator in amdgpu_sync_resv Christian König 2021-09-17 12:34 ` [Intel-gfx] " Christian König 2021-09-17 12:34 ` [PATCH 09/26] drm/amdgpu: use new iterator in amdgpu_ttm_bo_eviction_valuable Christian König 2021-09-17 12:34 ` [Intel-gfx] " Christian König 2021-09-17 12:34 ` [PATCH 10/26] drm/msm: use new iterator in msm_gem_describe Christian König 2021-09-17 12:34 ` [Intel-gfx] " Christian König 2021-09-17 12:34 ` [PATCH 11/26] drm/radeon: use new iterator in radeon_sync_resv Christian König 2021-09-17 12:34 ` [Intel-gfx] " Christian König 2021-09-17 12:34 ` [PATCH 12/26] drm/scheduler: use new iterator in drm_sched_job_add_implicit_dependencies v2 Christian König 2021-09-17 12:34 ` [Intel-gfx] " Christian König 2021-09-17 14:52 ` Daniel Vetter 2021-09-17 14:52 ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter 2021-11-15 14:03 ` Sascha Hauer 2021-11-15 14:03 ` Sascha Hauer 2021-11-15 14:03 ` [Intel-gfx] " Sascha Hauer 2021-11-15 14:08 ` Daniel Vetter 2021-11-15 14:08 ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter 2021-11-15 14:08 ` Daniel Vetter 2021-11-15 20:32 ` Christian König 2021-11-15 20:32 ` Christian König 2021-11-15 20:32 ` [Intel-gfx] " Christian König 2021-11-16 7:56 ` Sascha Hauer 2021-11-16 7:56 ` [Intel-gfx] " Sascha Hauer 2021-11-16 7:56 ` Sascha Hauer 2021-09-17 12:35 ` [PATCH 13/26] drm/i915: use the new iterator in i915_gem_busy_ioctl Christian König 2021-09-17 12:35 ` [Intel-gfx] " Christian König 2021-09-20 8:45 ` Tvrtko Ursulin 2021-09-20 10:13 ` Christian König 2021-09-20 10:33 ` Tvrtko Ursulin 2021-09-21 9:41 ` Christian König 2021-09-21 13:10 ` Tvrtko Ursulin 2021-09-17 12:35 ` [PATCH 14/26] drm/i915: use the new iterator in i915_sw_fence_await_reservation v3 Christian König 2021-09-17 12:35 ` [Intel-gfx] " Christian König 2021-09-20 8:45 ` Tvrtko Ursulin 2021-09-20 8:47 ` Tvrtko Ursulin 2021-09-20 10:14 ` Christian König 2021-09-17 12:35 ` [PATCH 15/26] drm/i915: use the new iterator in i915_request_await_object v2 Christian König 2021-09-17 12:35 ` [Intel-gfx] " Christian König 2021-09-17 12:35 ` [PATCH 16/26] drm/i915: use new iterator in i915_gem_object_wait_reservation v2 Christian König 2021-09-17 12:35 ` [Intel-gfx] " Christian König 2021-09-20 10:00 ` Tvrtko Ursulin 2021-09-21 17:35 ` Christian König 2021-09-17 12:35 ` [PATCH 17/26] drm/i915: use new iterator in i915_gem_object_wait_priority v2 Christian König 2021-09-17 12:35 ` [Intel-gfx] " Christian König 2021-09-17 12:35 ` [PATCH 18/26] drm/i915: use new iterator in i915_gem_object_last_write_engine v2 Christian König 2021-09-17 12:35 ` [Intel-gfx] " Christian König 2021-09-17 12:35 ` [PATCH 19/26] drm/i915: use new cursor in intel_prepare_plane_fb v2 Christian König 2021-09-17 12:35 ` [Intel-gfx] " Christian König 2021-09-17 12:35 ` [PATCH 20/26] drm: use new iterator in drm_gem_fence_array_add_implicit v2 Christian König 2021-09-17 12:35 ` [Intel-gfx] " Christian König 2021-09-17 14:53 ` Daniel Vetter 2021-09-17 14:53 ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter 2021-09-20 7:31 ` Christian König 2021-09-20 7:31 ` [Intel-gfx] " Christian König 2021-09-17 12:35 ` [PATCH 21/26] drm: use new iterator in drm_gem_plane_helper_prepare_fb v2 Christian König 2021-09-17 12:35 ` [Intel-gfx] " Christian König 2021-09-17 14:55 ` Daniel Vetter 2021-09-17 14:55 ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter 2021-09-20 7:35 ` Christian König 2021-09-20 7:35 ` [Intel-gfx] " Christian König 2021-09-17 12:35 ` [PATCH 22/26] drm/nouveau: use the new iterator in nouveau_fence_sync Christian König 2021-09-17 12:35 ` [Intel-gfx] " Christian König 2021-09-17 12:35 ` [PATCH 23/26] drm/nouveau: use the new interator in nv50_wndw_prepare_fb v2 Christian König 2021-09-17 12:35 ` [Intel-gfx] " Christian König 2021-09-17 12:35 ` [PATCH 24/26] drm/etnaviv: use new iterator in etnaviv_gem_describe Christian König 2021-09-17 12:35 ` [Intel-gfx] " Christian König 2021-09-17 12:35 ` [PATCH 25/26] drm/etnaviv: replace dma_resv_get_excl_unlocked Christian König 2021-09-17 12:35 ` [Intel-gfx] " Christian König 2021-09-17 12:35 ` [PATCH 26/26] dma-buf: nuke dma_resv_get_excl_unlocked Christian König 2021-09-17 12:35 ` [Intel-gfx] " Christian König 2021-09-17 14:56 ` Daniel Vetter 2021-09-17 14:56 ` [Intel-gfx] " Daniel Vetter 2021-09-17 14:01 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.CHECKPATCH: warning for series starting with [01/26] dma-buf: add dma_resv_for_each_fence_unlocked v2 Patchwork 2021-09-17 14:29 ` [Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success " Patchwork 2021-09-17 15:43 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.IGT: failure " Patchwork -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below -- 2021-09-16 11:30 Deploying new iterator interface for dma-buf Christian König 2021-09-16 11:30 ` [PATCH 01/26] dma-buf: add dma_resv_for_each_fence_unlocked v2 Christian König 2021-09-16 12:15 ` Daniel Vetter
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=YUSWzm+TjD7GHHO5@phenom.ffwll.local \ --to=daniel@ffwll.ch \ --cc=ckoenig.leichtzumerken@gmail.com \ --cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \ --cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \ --cc=linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org \ --cc=linux-media@vger.kernel.org \ --subject='Re: [PATCH 01/26] dma-buf: add dma_resv_for_each_fence_unlocked v2' \ /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
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.