On 15/03/2017 14:01, Chris Wilson wrote:
We need to ensure that we always serialize updates to the bottom-half
using the breadcrumbs.irq_lock so that we don't race with a concurrent
interrupt handler. This is most important just prior to leaving the
waiter (when the intel_wait will be overwritten), so make sure we are
not the current bottom-half when skipping the irq locks.
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <[email protected]>
Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <[email protected]>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_breadcrumbs.c | 5 ++++-
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_breadcrumbs.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_breadcrumbs.c
index ebcb595001fc..d10148567dbc 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_breadcrumbs.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_breadcrumbs.c
@@ -287,6 +287,7 @@ static inline void __intel_breadcrumbs_finish(struct
intel_breadcrumbs *b,
struct intel_wait *wait)
{
lockdep_assert_held(&b->rb_lock);
+ GEM_BUG_ON(b->irq_wait == wait);
/* This request is completed, so remove it from the tree, mark it as
* complete, and *then* wake up the associated task.
@@ -517,8 +518,10 @@ void intel_engine_remove_wait(struct intel_engine_cs
*engine,
* the tree by the bottom-half to avoid contention on the spinlock
* by the herd.
*/
- if (RB_EMPTY_NODE(&wait->node))
+ if (RB_EMPTY_NODE(&wait->node)) {
+ GEM_BUG_ON(READ_ONCE(b->irq_wait) == wait);
return;
+ }
spin_lock_irq(&b->rb_lock);
__intel_engine_remove_wait(engine, wait);
Reviewed-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <[email protected]>
Regards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
