[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e2799662727a10b77b77ceb2fc2cdabe27537e3e.camel@mailbox.org>
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2025 08:17:17 +0100
From: Philipp Stanner <phasta@...lbox.org>
To: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@...el.com>, Philipp Stanner
<phasta@...nel.org>
Cc: Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@...aro.org>, Gustavo Padovan
<gustavo@...ovan.org>, Christian König
<christian.koenig@....com>, Felix Kuehling <Felix.Kuehling@....com>, Alex
Deucher <alexander.deucher@....com>, David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
Simona Vetter <simona@...ll.ch>, Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@...ux.intel.com>, Rodrigo Vivi
<rodrigo.vivi@...el.com>, Tvrtko Ursulin <tursulin@...ulin.net>, Huang Rui
<ray.huang@....com>, Matthew Auld <matthew.auld@...el.com>, Maarten
Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>, Maxime Ripard
<mripard@...nel.org>, Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>, Lucas De
Marchi <lucas.demarchi@...el.com>, Thomas Hellström
<thomas.hellstrom@...ux.intel.com>, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org,
intel-xe@...ts.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/8] drm/xe: Use dma_fence_check_and_signal_locked()
On Mon, 2025-12-01 at 11:38 -0800, Matthew Brost wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 01, 2025 at 11:50:08AM +0100, Philipp Stanner wrote:
> > Xe is one of the few users utilizing the return code of
> > dma_fence_signal() to check whether a fence had already been signaled by
> > someone else.
> >
> > To clean up and simplify the dma_fence API, the few kernel users relying
> > on that behavior shall be ported to an alternative function.
> >
> > Replace dma_fence_signal_locked() with
> > dma_fence_check_and_signal_locked().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Philipp Stanner <phasta@...nel.org>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_hw_fence.c | 4 +---
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_hw_fence.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_hw_fence.c
> > index b2a0c46dfcd4..f6057456e460 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_hw_fence.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_hw_fence.c
> > @@ -85,7 +85,6 @@ void xe_hw_fence_irq_finish(struct xe_hw_fence_irq *irq)
> > {
> > struct xe_hw_fence *fence, *next;
> > unsigned long flags;
> > - int err;
> > bool tmp;
> >
> > if (XE_WARN_ON(!list_empty(&irq->pending))) {
> > @@ -93,9 +92,8 @@ void xe_hw_fence_irq_finish(struct xe_hw_fence_irq *irq)
> > spin_lock_irqsave(&irq->lock, flags);
> > list_for_each_entry_safe(fence, next, &irq->pending, irq_link) {
> > list_del_init(&fence->irq_link);
> > - err = dma_fence_signal_locked(&fence->dma);
> > + XE_WARN_ON(dma_fence_check_and_signal_locked(&fence->dma));
>
> I think XE_WARN_ON can compile out in certain builds. Best to leave warn on logic as is.
OK, will adjust.
>
> Also a little confused by this new helper... Doesn't
> dma_fence_signal_locked already check if a fence is already signaled and
> bail? Running out the door so I don't have time dig in here, but can you
> explain?
Yes, that is what dma_fence_signal_locked() *currently* does. The
series, however, is about removing that check from the default
interfaces because barely anyone uses dma_fence_signal() et.al.'s
return code. To simplify the interfaces.
The 2-3 users who need the code get this new function. See cover
letter.
P.
>
> Matt
>
> > dma_fence_put(&fence->dma);
> > - XE_WARN_ON(err);
> > }
> > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&irq->lock, flags);
> > dma_fence_end_signalling(tmp);
> > --
> > 2.49.0
> >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists