Hi Adrian,
On Thu, 28 Aug 2025 at 04:35, Adrián Larumbe
<adrian.laru...@collabora.com> wrote:
> -void panfrost_job_close(struct panfrost_file_priv *panfrost_priv)
> +int panfrost_jm_ctx_destroy(struct drm_file *file, u32 handle)
> {
> - struct panfrost_device *pfdev = panfrost_priv->pfdev;
> - int i;
> + struct panfrost_file_priv *priv = file->driver_priv;
> + struct panfrost_device *pfdev = priv->pfdev;
> + struct panfrost_jm_ctx *jm_ctx;
>
> - for (i = 0; i < NUM_JOB_SLOTS; i++)
> - drm_sched_entity_destroy(&panfrost_priv->sched_entity[i]);
> + jm_ctx = xa_erase(&priv->jm_ctxs, handle);
> + if (!jm_ctx)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + for (u32 i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(jm_ctx->slots); i++) {
> + if (jm_ctx->slots[i].enabled)
> +
> drm_sched_entity_destroy(&jm_ctx->slots[i].sched_entity);
> + }
>
> /* Kill in-flight jobs */
> spin_lock(&pfdev->js->job_lock);
> - for (i = 0; i < NUM_JOB_SLOTS; i++) {
> - struct drm_sched_entity *entity =
> &panfrost_priv->sched_entity[i];
> - int j;
> + for (u32 i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(jm_ctx->slots); i++) {
> + struct drm_sched_entity *entity =
> &jm_ctx->slots[i].sched_entity;
> +
> + if (!jm_ctx->slots[i].enabled)
> + continue;
>
> - for (j = ARRAY_SIZE(pfdev->jobs[0]) - 1; j >= 0; j--) {
> + for (int j = ARRAY_SIZE(pfdev->jobs[0]) - 1; j >= 0; j--) {
> struct panfrost_job *job = pfdev->jobs[i][j];
> u32 cmd;
>
> @@ -980,18 +1161,7 @@ void panfrost_job_close(struct panfrost_file_priv
> *panfrost_priv)
> }
> }
> spin_unlock(&pfdev->js->job_lock);
> -}
> -
> -int panfrost_job_is_idle(struct panfrost_device *pfdev)
> -{
> - struct panfrost_job_slot *js = pfdev->js;
> - int i;
> -
> - for (i = 0; i < NUM_JOB_SLOTS; i++) {
> - /* If there are any jobs in the HW queue, we're not idle */
> - if (atomic_read(&js->queue[i].sched.credit_count))
> - return false;
> - }
>
> - return true;
> + panfrost_jm_ctx_put(jm_ctx);
> + return 0;
> }
It seems odd that both panfrost_jm_ctx_destroy() and
panfrost_jm_ctx_release() share lifetime responsibilities. I'd expect
calling panfrost_jm_ctx_destroy() to just release the xarray handle
and drop the refcount.
I can see why calling panfrost_jm_ctx_destroy() is the one to go try
to cancel the jobs - because the jobs keep a refcount on the context,
so we need to break that cycle somehow. But having both the
handle-release and object-release function drop a ref on the sched
entity seems odd?
It doesn't help much that panfrost_job is used both for actual jobs
(as the type) and the capability for a device to have multiple
job-manager contexts (as a function prefix). Would be great to clean
that up, so you don't have to think about whether e.g.
panfrost_job_close() is actually operating on a panfrost_job, or
operating on multiple panfrost_jm_ctx which operate on multiple
panfrost_job.
Cheers,
Daniel
