Upcoming Intel Xe driver will need to have a more fine-grained control
over DRM managed actions - namely, the ability to release a given
action, triggering it manually at a different point in time than the
final drm_dev_put().
This series adds a drmm_release_action function (which is similar to
devres devm_release_action) and a simple test that uses it.
Michał Winiarski (2):
drm/managed: Add drmm_release_action
drm/tests: managed: Add a simple test for drmm_managed_release
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_managed.c | 39 ++++++++++++++
drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_managed_test.c | 65 ++++++++++++++++++------
include/drm/drm_managed.h | 4 ++
3 files changed, 93 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
--
2.43.0
Similar to devres equivalent, it allows to call the "release" action
directly and remove the resource from the managed resources list.
Signed-off-by: Michał Winiarski <[email protected]>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/drm_managed.c | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
include/drm/drm_managed.h | 4 ++++
2 files changed, 43 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_managed.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_managed.c
index bcd111404b128..7646f67bda4e4 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_managed.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_managed.c
@@ -176,6 +176,45 @@ int __drmm_add_action_or_reset(struct drm_device *dev,
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(__drmm_add_action_or_reset);
+/**
+ * drmm_release_action - release a managed action from a &drm_device
+ * @dev: DRM device
+ * @action: function which would be called when @dev is released
+ * @data: opaque pointer, passed to @action
+ *
+ * This function calls the @action previously added by drmm_add_action()
+ * immediately.
+ * The @action is removed from the list of cleanup actions for @dev,
+ * which means that it won't be called in the final drm_dev_put().
+ */
+void drmm_release_action(struct drm_device *dev,
+ drmres_release_t action,
+ void *data)
+{
+ struct drmres *dr_match = NULL, *dr;
+ unsigned long flags;
+
+ spin_lock_irqsave(&dev->managed.lock, flags);
+ list_for_each_entry_reverse(dr, &dev->managed.resources, node.entry) {
+ if (dr->node.release == action) {
+ if (!data || (data && *(void **)dr->data == data)) {
+ dr_match = dr;
+ del_dr(dev, dr_match);
+ break;
+ }
+ }
+ }
+ spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dev->managed.lock, flags);
+
+ if (WARN_ON(!dr_match))
+ return;
+
+ action(dev, data);
+
+ free_dr(dr_match);
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(drmm_release_action);
+
/**
* drmm_kmalloc - &drm_device managed kmalloc()
* @dev: DRM device
diff --git a/include/drm/drm_managed.h b/include/drm/drm_managed.h
index ad08f834af408..f547b09ca0239 100644
--- a/include/drm/drm_managed.h
+++ b/include/drm/drm_managed.h
@@ -45,6 +45,10 @@ int __must_check __drmm_add_action_or_reset(struct drm_device *dev,
drmres_release_t action,
void *data, const char *name);
+void drmm_release_action(struct drm_device *dev,
+ drmres_release_t action,
+ void *data);
+
void *drmm_kmalloc(struct drm_device *dev, size_t size, gfp_t gfp) __malloc;
/**
--
2.43.0
Add a simple test that checks whether the action is indeed called right
away and that it is not called on the final drm_dev_put().
Signed-off-by: Michał Winiarski <[email protected]>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_managed_test.c | 65 ++++++++++++++++++------
1 file changed, 50 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_managed_test.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_managed_test.c
index 1652dca11d30c..a645ea42aee56 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_managed_test.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_managed_test.c
@@ -12,6 +12,8 @@
#define TEST_TIMEOUT_MS 100
struct managed_test_priv {
+ struct drm_device *drm;
+ struct device *dev;
bool action_done;
wait_queue_head_t action_wq;
};
@@ -26,42 +28,75 @@ static void drm_action(struct drm_device *drm, void *ptr)
static void drm_test_managed_run_action(struct kunit *test)
{
- struct managed_test_priv *priv;
- struct drm_device *drm;
- struct device *dev;
+ struct managed_test_priv *priv = test->priv;
int ret;
- priv = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*priv), GFP_KERNEL);
- KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, priv);
- init_waitqueue_head(&priv->action_wq);
+ ret = drmm_add_action_or_reset(priv->drm, drm_action, priv);
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, ret, 0);
- dev = drm_kunit_helper_alloc_device(test);
- KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, dev);
+ ret = drm_dev_register(priv->drm, 0);
+ KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, ret, 0);
+
+ drm_dev_unregister(priv->drm);
+ drm_kunit_helper_free_device(test, priv->dev);
- drm = __drm_kunit_helper_alloc_drm_device(test, dev, sizeof(*drm), 0, DRIVER_MODESET);
- KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, drm);
+ ret = wait_event_interruptible_timeout(priv->action_wq, priv->action_done,
+ msecs_to_jiffies(TEST_TIMEOUT_MS));
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_GT(test, ret, 0);
+}
- ret = drmm_add_action_or_reset(drm, drm_action, priv);
+static void drm_test_managed_release_action(struct kunit *test)
+{
+ struct managed_test_priv *priv = test->priv;
+ int ret;
+
+ ret = drmm_add_action_or_reset(priv->drm, drm_action, priv);
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, ret, 0);
- ret = drm_dev_register(drm, 0);
+ ret = drm_dev_register(priv->drm, 0);
KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, ret, 0);
- drm_dev_unregister(drm);
- drm_kunit_helper_free_device(test, dev);
+ drmm_release_action(priv->drm, drm_action, priv);
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, priv->action_done);
+ priv->action_done = false;
+
+ drm_dev_unregister(priv->drm);
+ drm_kunit_helper_free_device(test, priv->dev);
ret = wait_event_interruptible_timeout(priv->action_wq, priv->action_done,
msecs_to_jiffies(TEST_TIMEOUT_MS));
- KUNIT_EXPECT_GT(test, ret, 0);
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, ret, 0);
+}
+
+static int drm_managed_test_init(struct kunit *test)
+{
+ struct managed_test_priv *priv;
+
+ priv = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*priv), GFP_KERNEL);
+ KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, priv);
+ init_waitqueue_head(&priv->action_wq);
+
+ priv->dev = drm_kunit_helper_alloc_device(test);
+ KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, priv->dev);
+
+ priv->drm = __drm_kunit_helper_alloc_drm_device(test, priv->dev, sizeof(*priv->drm),
+ 0, DRIVER_MODESET);
+ KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, priv->drm);
+
+ test->priv = priv;
+
+ return 0;
}
static struct kunit_case drm_managed_tests[] = {
KUNIT_CASE(drm_test_managed_run_action),
+ KUNIT_CASE(drm_test_managed_release_action),
{}
};
static struct kunit_suite drm_managed_test_suite = {
.name = "drm-test-managed",
+ .init = drm_managed_test_init,
.test_cases = drm_managed_tests
};
--
2.43.0
Hi,
Thanks for creating a test for that, that's really appreciated :)
On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 11:14:12PM +0100, Michał Winiarski wrote:
> Add a simple test that checks whether the action is indeed called right
> away and that it is not called on the final drm_dev_put().
>
> Signed-off-by: Michał Winiarski <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_managed_test.c | 65 ++++++++++++++++++------
> 1 file changed, 50 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_managed_test.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_managed_test.c
> index 1652dca11d30c..a645ea42aee56 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_managed_test.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_managed_test.c
> @@ -12,6 +12,8 @@
> #define TEST_TIMEOUT_MS 100
>
> struct managed_test_priv {
> + struct drm_device *drm;
> + struct device *dev;
> bool action_done;
> wait_queue_head_t action_wq;
> };
> @@ -26,42 +28,75 @@ static void drm_action(struct drm_device *drm, void *ptr)
>
> static void drm_test_managed_run_action(struct kunit *test)
> {
> - struct managed_test_priv *priv;
> - struct drm_device *drm;
> - struct device *dev;
> + struct managed_test_priv *priv = test->priv;
> int ret;
>
> - priv = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*priv), GFP_KERNEL);
> - KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, priv);
> - init_waitqueue_head(&priv->action_wq);
> + ret = drmm_add_action_or_reset(priv->drm, drm_action, priv);
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, ret, 0);
>
> - dev = drm_kunit_helper_alloc_device(test);
> - KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, dev);
> + ret = drm_dev_register(priv->drm, 0);
> + KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, ret, 0);
> +
> + drm_dev_unregister(priv->drm);
> + drm_kunit_helper_free_device(test, priv->dev);
I think we'll need two patches here, one to convert to having an init
function, and one to actually add the new test, it's pretty confusing as
it is.
>
> - drm = __drm_kunit_helper_alloc_drm_device(test, dev, sizeof(*drm), 0, DRIVER_MODESET);
> - KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, drm);
> + ret = wait_event_interruptible_timeout(priv->action_wq, priv->action_done,
> + msecs_to_jiffies(TEST_TIMEOUT_MS));
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_GT(test, ret, 0);
> +}
>
> - ret = drmm_add_action_or_reset(drm, drm_action, priv);
> +static void drm_test_managed_release_action(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> + struct managed_test_priv *priv = test->priv;
> + int ret;
> +
> + ret = drmm_add_action_or_reset(priv->drm, drm_action, priv);
> KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, ret, 0);
>
> - ret = drm_dev_register(drm, 0);
> + ret = drm_dev_register(priv->drm, 0);
> KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, ret, 0);
>
> - drm_dev_unregister(drm);
> - drm_kunit_helper_free_device(test, dev);
> + drmm_release_action(priv->drm, drm_action, priv);
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, priv->action_done);
> + priv->action_done = false;
> +
> + drm_dev_unregister(priv->drm);
> + drm_kunit_helper_free_device(test, priv->dev);
>
> ret = wait_event_interruptible_timeout(priv->action_wq, priv->action_done,
> msecs_to_jiffies(TEST_TIMEOUT_MS));
> - KUNIT_EXPECT_GT(test, ret, 0);
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, ret, 0);
> +}
> +
> +static int drm_managed_test_init(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> + struct managed_test_priv *priv;
> +
> + priv = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*priv), GFP_KERNEL);
> + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, priv);
> + init_waitqueue_head(&priv->action_wq);
Also, I know that it was there before, but I'm not sure it's valid from
a lifetime point of view. Or at least, we have to think hard enough
about it to just remove that construct
> + priv->dev = drm_kunit_helper_alloc_device(test);
> + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, priv->dev);
> +
> + priv->drm = __drm_kunit_helper_alloc_drm_device(test, priv->dev, sizeof(*priv->drm),
> + 0, DRIVER_MODESET);
> + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, priv->drm);
For example by storing the drm_device struct in the priv structure
directly, and thus everything will just work out.
Maxime
On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 09:38:35AM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for creating a test for that, that's really appreciated :)
>
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 11:14:12PM +0100, Michał Winiarski wrote:
> > Add a simple test that checks whether the action is indeed called right
> > away and that it is not called on the final drm_dev_put().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Michał Winiarski <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_managed_test.c | 65 ++++++++++++++++++------
> > 1 file changed, 50 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_managed_test.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_managed_test.c
> > index 1652dca11d30c..a645ea42aee56 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_managed_test.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_managed_test.c
> > @@ -12,6 +12,8 @@
> > #define TEST_TIMEOUT_MS 100
> >
> > struct managed_test_priv {
> > + struct drm_device *drm;
> > + struct device *dev;
> > bool action_done;
> > wait_queue_head_t action_wq;
> > };
> > @@ -26,42 +28,75 @@ static void drm_action(struct drm_device *drm, void *ptr)
> >
> > static void drm_test_managed_run_action(struct kunit *test)
> > {
> > - struct managed_test_priv *priv;
> > - struct drm_device *drm;
> > - struct device *dev;
> > + struct managed_test_priv *priv = test->priv;
> > int ret;
> >
> > - priv = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*priv), GFP_KERNEL);
> > - KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, priv);
> > - init_waitqueue_head(&priv->action_wq);
> > + ret = drmm_add_action_or_reset(priv->drm, drm_action, priv);
> > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, ret, 0);
> >
> > - dev = drm_kunit_helper_alloc_device(test);
> > - KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, dev);
> > + ret = drm_dev_register(priv->drm, 0);
> > + KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, ret, 0);
> > +
> > + drm_dev_unregister(priv->drm);
> > + drm_kunit_helper_free_device(test, priv->dev);
>
> I think we'll need two patches here, one to convert to having an init
> function, and one to actually add the new test, it's pretty confusing as
> it is.
>
> >
> > - drm = __drm_kunit_helper_alloc_drm_device(test, dev, sizeof(*drm), 0, DRIVER_MODESET);
> > - KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, drm);
> > + ret = wait_event_interruptible_timeout(priv->action_wq, priv->action_done,
> > + msecs_to_jiffies(TEST_TIMEOUT_MS));
> > + KUNIT_EXPECT_GT(test, ret, 0);
> > +}
> >
> > - ret = drmm_add_action_or_reset(drm, drm_action, priv);
> > +static void drm_test_managed_release_action(struct kunit *test)
> > +{
> > + struct managed_test_priv *priv = test->priv;
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + ret = drmm_add_action_or_reset(priv->drm, drm_action, priv);
> > KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, ret, 0);
> >
> > - ret = drm_dev_register(drm, 0);
> > + ret = drm_dev_register(priv->drm, 0);
> > KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, ret, 0);
> >
> > - drm_dev_unregister(drm);
> > - drm_kunit_helper_free_device(test, dev);
> > + drmm_release_action(priv->drm, drm_action, priv);
> > + KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, priv->action_done);
> > + priv->action_done = false;
> > +
> > + drm_dev_unregister(priv->drm);
> > + drm_kunit_helper_free_device(test, priv->dev);
> >
> > ret = wait_event_interruptible_timeout(priv->action_wq, priv->action_done,
> > msecs_to_jiffies(TEST_TIMEOUT_MS));
> > - KUNIT_EXPECT_GT(test, ret, 0);
> > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, ret, 0);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int drm_managed_test_init(struct kunit *test)
> > +{
> > + struct managed_test_priv *priv;
> > +
> > + priv = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*priv), GFP_KERNEL);
> > + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, priv);
> > + init_waitqueue_head(&priv->action_wq);
>
> Also, I know that it was there before, but I'm not sure it's valid from
> a lifetime point of view. Or at least, we have to think hard enough
> about it to just remove that construct
>
> > + priv->dev = drm_kunit_helper_alloc_device(test);
> > + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, priv->dev);
> > +
> > + priv->drm = __drm_kunit_helper_alloc_drm_device(test, priv->dev, sizeof(*priv->drm),
> > + 0, DRIVER_MODESET);
> > + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, priv->drm);
>
> For example by storing the drm_device struct in the priv structure
> directly, and thus everything will just work out.
Sure, makes sense, I'll include it in the patch that moves device alloc
to .init().
Thanks,
-Michał
>
> Maxime