Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1343269 > unrolled thread

Re: [RFC 26/29] dma-buf/fence: remove pointless fence_timeline_signal at destroy phase

Started byGustavo Padovan <gustavo@padovan.org>
First post2016-02-25 16:30 +0100
Last post2016-02-25 16:30 +0100
Articles 1 — 1 participant

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.


Contents

  Re: [RFC 26/29] dma-buf/fence: remove pointless  fence_timeline_signal at destroy phase Gustavo Padovan <gustavo@padovan.org> - 2016-02-25 16:30 +0100

#1343269 — Re: [RFC 26/29] dma-buf/fence: remove pointless fence_timeline_signal at destroy phase

FromGustavo Padovan <gustavo@padovan.org>
Date2016-02-25 16:30 +0100
SubjectRe: [RFC 26/29] dma-buf/fence: remove pointless fence_timeline_signal at destroy phase
Message-ID<r661A-5NR-13@gated-at.bofh.it>
2016-02-09 Tom Cherry <tomcherry@google.com>:

> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 3:42 PM, Greg Hackmann <ghackmann@google.com> wrote:
> > On 01/15/2016 10:02 AM, Gustavo Padovan wrote:
> >>
> >> Patches 27 and 28 are attempt to fix that. I assumed that if some code is
> >> calling fence_timeline_destroy() it wants to stop everything so I
> >> worked on a solution that stops any waiter and allows the timeline to be
> >> destroyed.
> >>
> >> No one is using fence_timeline_destroy() in mainline now, so it is
> >> definately a behaviour we can discuss.
> >>
> >>         Gustavo
> >>
> >
> > +Tom Cherry and Dmitry Torokhov recently discovered that this was broken by
> > the refactoring of Android sync on top of dma-buf fences.
> >
> > Tom and Dmitry, did you send the proposed fix upstream?
> 
> There was a similar issue that I had originally thought to be related
> to fence_timeline_destroy() but was actually related to
> sync_fence_free().  Dmitry sent the patch upstream at
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/12/14/953, but it does not look like it has
> received any feedback.
> 
> We saw real panics without this patch.  I didn't see this patch or any
> similar changes in the destaging commits, and I would recommend it be
> looked at while destaging this driver.

This patch is already uptream, Greg pushed it in December. :)

	Gustavo

[toc] | [standalone]


Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel


csiph-web