[Intel-gfx] [RFC 6/9] drm/syncobj: Mark syncobj waits as external waiters

[Tvrtko Ursulin]

On 18/02/2023 19:56, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 2:59 AM Tvrtko Ursulin
> <tvrtko.ursulin at linux.intel.com> wrote:
>>
>> From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin at intel.com>
>>
>> Use the previously added dma-fence tracking of explicit waiters.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin at intel.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/gpu/drm/drm_syncobj.c | 6 +++---
>>   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_syncobj.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_syncobj.c
>> index 0c2be8360525..776b90774a64 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_syncobj.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_syncobj.c
>> @@ -1065,9 +1065,9 @@ static signed long drm_syncobj_array_wait_timeout(struct drm_syncobj **syncobjs,
>>                          if ((flags & DRM_SYNCOBJ_WAIT_FLAGS_WAIT_AVAILABLE) ||
>>                              dma_fence_is_signaled(fence) ||
>>                              (!entries[i].fence_cb.func &&
>> -                            dma_fence_add_callback(fence,
>> -                                                   &entries[i].fence_cb,
>> -                                                   syncobj_wait_fence_func))) {
>> +                            dma_fence_add_wait_callback(fence,
>> +                                                        &entries[i].fence_cb,
>> +                                                        syncobj_wait_fence_func))) {
> 
> I think this isn't really what you want if count > 1, because you
> wouldn't be notifying the fence signaler of fence n+1 until the wait
> on fence n completed

Are you sure? After some staring all I can see is that all callbacks are 
added before the first sleep.

Regards,

Tvrtko