Commit 78d2ad7e authored by Ville Syrjälä's avatar Ville Syrjälä

drm/i915/gt: Fix -EDEADLK handling regression

The conversion to ww mutexes failed to address the fence code which
already returns -EDEADLK when we run out of fences. Ww mutexes on
the other hand treat -EDEADLK as an internal errno value indicating
a need to restart the operation due to a deadlock. So now when the
fence code returns -EDEADLK the higher level code erroneously
restarts everything instead of returning the error to userspace
as is expected.

To remedy this let's switch the fence code to use a different errno
value for this. -ENOBUFS seems like a semi-reasonable unique choice.
Apart from igt the only user of this I could find is sna, and even
there all we do is dump the current fence registers from debugfs
into the X server log. So no user visible functionality is affected.
If we really cared about preserving this we could of course convert
back to -EDEADLK higher up, but doesn't seem like that's worth
the hassle here.

Not quite sure which commit specifically broke this, but I'll
just attribute it to the general gem ww mutex work.

Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom@intel.com>
Testcase: igt/gem_pread/exhaustion
Testcase: igt/gem_pwrite/basic-exhaustion
Testcase: igt/gem_fenced_exec_thrash/too-many-fences
Fixes: 80f0b679 ("drm/i915: Add an implementation for i915_gem_ww_ctx locking, v2.")
Signed-off-by: default avatarVille Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
Link: https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20210630164413.25481-1-ville.syrjala@linux.intel.comReviewed-by: default avatarMaarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>
parent b3f450d9
......@@ -348,7 +348,7 @@ static struct i915_fence_reg *fence_find(struct i915_ggtt *ggtt)
if (intel_has_pending_fb_unpin(ggtt->vm.i915))
return ERR_PTR(-EAGAIN);
return ERR_PTR(-EDEADLK);
return ERR_PTR(-ENOBUFS);
}
int __i915_vma_pin_fence(struct i915_vma *vma)
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment