Currently we reserve seqnos only when we emit the request to the ring
(by bumping dev_priv->next_seqno), but start using it much earlier for
ring->oustanding_lazy_request. When 2 threads compete for the gpu and
run on two different rings (e.g. ddx on blitter vs. compositor)
hilarity ensued, especially when we get constantly interrupted while
reserving buffers.
Breakage seems to have been introduced in
commit 6f392d5486
Author: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Date: Sat Aug 7 11:01:22 2010 +0100
drm/i915: Use a common seqno for all rings.
This patch fixes up the seqno reservation logic by moving it into
i915_gem_next_request_seqno. The ring->add_request functions now
superflously still return the new seqno through a pointer, that will
be refactored in the next patch.
Note that with this change we now unconditionally allocate a seqno,
even when ->add_request might fail because the rings are full and the
gpu died. But this does not open up a new can of worms because we can
already leave behind an outstanding_request_seqno if e.g. the caller
gets interrupted with a signal while stalling for the gpu in the
eviciton paths. And with the bugfix we only ever have one seqno
allocated per ring (and only that ring), so there are no ordering
issues with multiple outstanding seqnos on the same ring.
v2: Keep i915_gem_get_seqno (but move it to i915_gem.c) to make it
clear that we only have one seqno counter for all rings. Suggested by
Chris Wilson.
v3: As suggested by Chris Wilson use i915_gem_next_request_seqno
instead of ring->oustanding_lazy_request to make the follow-up
refactoring more clearly correct. Also improve the commit message
with issues discussed on irc.
Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45181
Tested-by: Nicolas Kalkhof nkalkhof()at()web.de
Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Signed-Off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
53d227f282