On 5/8/25 15:44, Prike Liang wrote:
> Lock and refer to the eviction fence before trying to signal it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Prike Liang <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_eviction_fence.c | 5 ++++-
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_eviction_fence.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_eviction_fence.c
> index 1a7469543db5..dd272c1fcbb4 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_eviction_fence.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_eviction_fence.c
> @@ -108,13 +108,16 @@ amdgpu_eviction_fence_suspend_worker(struct work_struct
> *work)
> struct amdgpu_eviction_fence *ev_fence;
>
> mutex_lock(&uq_mgr->userq_mutex);
> - ev_fence = evf_mgr->ev_fence;
> + spin_lock(&evf_mgr->ev_fence_lock);
> + ev_fence = (struct amdgpu_eviction_fence
> *)dma_fence_get(&evf_mgr->ev_fence->base);
That case is not a good approach, instead put the dma_fence_get on a separate
line.
Apart from that it looks good to me.
Christian.
> + spin_unlock(&evf_mgr->ev_fence_lock);
> if (!ev_fence)
> goto unlock;
>
> amdgpu_userq_evict(uq_mgr, ev_fence);
>
> unlock:
> + dma_fence_put(&evf_mgr->ev_fence->base);
> mutex_unlock(&uq_mgr->userq_mutex);
> }
>
