| Message ID | 20220504122256.1654-3-christian.koenig@amd.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [1/5] dma-buf: cleanup dma_fence_unwrap selftest | expand |
On Wed, May 04, 2022 at 02:22:54PM +0200, Christian König wrote: > dma_fence_chain containers cleanup signaled fences automatically, so > filter those out from arrays as well. > > Signed-off-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com> > --- > drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence-unwrap.c | 23 ++++++++++++++++------- > include/linux/dma-fence-unwrap.h | 4 ++-- > 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence-unwrap.c b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence-unwrap.c > index 711be125428c..7b0b91086ded 100644 > --- a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence-unwrap.c > +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence-unwrap.c > @@ -32,8 +32,13 @@ __dma_fence_unwrap_array(struct dma_fence_unwrap *cursor) > struct dma_fence *dma_fence_unwrap_first(struct dma_fence *head, > struct dma_fence_unwrap *cursor) > { > + struct dma_fence *tmp; > + > cursor->chain = dma_fence_get(head); > - return __dma_fence_unwrap_array(cursor); > + tmp = __dma_fence_unwrap_array(cursor); > + if (tmp && dma_fence_is_signaled(tmp)) > + tmp = dma_fence_unwrap_next(cursor); > + return tmp; > } > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(dma_fence_unwrap_first); > > @@ -48,12 +53,16 @@ struct dma_fence *dma_fence_unwrap_next(struct dma_fence_unwrap *cursor) > { > struct dma_fence *tmp; > > - ++cursor->index; > - tmp = dma_fence_array_next(cursor->array, cursor->index); > - if (tmp) > - return tmp; > + do { > + ++cursor->index; > + tmp = dma_fence_array_next(cursor->array, cursor->index); > + if (tmp && !dma_fence_is_signaled(tmp)) > + return tmp; Don't do need a do {} while here too to first walk through the array before going to the next one in the chain? Maybe add a testcase for this? > + > + cursor->chain = dma_fence_chain_walk(cursor->chain); > + tmp = __dma_fence_unwrap_array(cursor); > + } while (tmp && dma_fence_is_signaled(tmp)); > > - cursor->chain = dma_fence_chain_walk(cursor->chain); > - return __dma_fence_unwrap_array(cursor); > + return tmp; > } > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(dma_fence_unwrap_next); > diff --git a/include/linux/dma-fence-unwrap.h b/include/linux/dma-fence-unwrap.h > index e7c219da4ed7..e9d114637294 100644 > --- a/include/linux/dma-fence-unwrap.h > +++ b/include/linux/dma-fence-unwrap.h > @@ -41,8 +41,8 @@ struct dma_fence *dma_fence_unwrap_next(struct dma_fence_unwrap *cursor); > * @head: starting point for the iterator > * > * Unwrap dma_fence_chain and dma_fence_array containers and deep dive into all > - * potential fences in them. If @head is just a normal fence only that one is > - * returned. > + * potential none signaled fences in them. If @head is just a normal fence only > + * that one is returned. I think I get what you want to say, but it reads garbled. What about leaving the current text as-is and adding something like "Note that signalled fences are opportunistically filtered out, which means the iteration is potentially over no fence at all" Or something like that? I think smashing this all into one sentence doesn't work well. Then please also add this same sentence to unwrap_first/next() for completeness. -Daniel > */ > #define dma_fence_unwrap_for_each(fence, cursor, head) \ > for (fence = dma_fence_unwrap_first(head, cursor); fence; \ > -- > 2.25.1 >
diff --git a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence-unwrap.c b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence-unwrap.c index 711be125428c..7b0b91086ded 100644 --- a/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence-unwrap.c +++ b/drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence-unwrap.c @@ -32,8 +32,13 @@ __dma_fence_unwrap_array(struct dma_fence_unwrap *cursor) struct dma_fence *dma_fence_unwrap_first(struct dma_fence *head, struct dma_fence_unwrap *cursor) { + struct dma_fence *tmp; + cursor->chain = dma_fence_get(head); - return __dma_fence_unwrap_array(cursor); + tmp = __dma_fence_unwrap_array(cursor); + if (tmp && dma_fence_is_signaled(tmp)) + tmp = dma_fence_unwrap_next(cursor); + return tmp; } EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(dma_fence_unwrap_first); @@ -48,12 +53,16 @@ struct dma_fence *dma_fence_unwrap_next(struct dma_fence_unwrap *cursor) { struct dma_fence *tmp; - ++cursor->index; - tmp = dma_fence_array_next(cursor->array, cursor->index); - if (tmp) - return tmp; + do { + ++cursor->index; + tmp = dma_fence_array_next(cursor->array, cursor->index); + if (tmp && !dma_fence_is_signaled(tmp)) + return tmp; + + cursor->chain = dma_fence_chain_walk(cursor->chain); + tmp = __dma_fence_unwrap_array(cursor); + } while (tmp && dma_fence_is_signaled(tmp)); - cursor->chain = dma_fence_chain_walk(cursor->chain); - return __dma_fence_unwrap_array(cursor); + return tmp; } EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(dma_fence_unwrap_next); diff --git a/include/linux/dma-fence-unwrap.h b/include/linux/dma-fence-unwrap.h index e7c219da4ed7..e9d114637294 100644 --- a/include/linux/dma-fence-unwrap.h +++ b/include/linux/dma-fence-unwrap.h @@ -41,8 +41,8 @@ struct dma_fence *dma_fence_unwrap_next(struct dma_fence_unwrap *cursor); * @head: starting point for the iterator * * Unwrap dma_fence_chain and dma_fence_array containers and deep dive into all - * potential fences in them. If @head is just a normal fence only that one is - * returned. + * potential none signaled fences in them. If @head is just a normal fence only + * that one is returned. */ #define dma_fence_unwrap_for_each(fence, cursor, head) \ for (fence = dma_fence_unwrap_first(head, cursor); fence; \
dma_fence_chain containers cleanup signaled fences automatically, so filter those out from arrays as well. Signed-off-by: Christian König <christian.koenig@amd.com> --- drivers/dma-buf/dma-fence-unwrap.c | 23 ++++++++++++++++------- include/linux/dma-fence-unwrap.h | 4 ++-- 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)