drm/i915: remove do_retire from i915_wait_request

This originates from a hack by me to quickly fix a bug in an earlier
patch where we needed control over whether or not waiting on a seqno
actually did any retire list processing. Since the two operations aren't
clearly related, we should pull the parameter out of the wait function,
and make the caller responsible for retiring if the action is desired.

The only function call site which did not get an explicit retire_request call
(on purpose) is i915_gem_inactive_shrink(). That code was already calling
retire_request a second time.

v2: don't modify any behavior excepit i915_gem_inactive_shrink(Daniel)

Signed-off-by: Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>

1 files changed, 11 insertions, 22 deletions

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
index b46a3fd..e378204 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
@@ -1825,8 +1825,7 @@ i915_gem_retire_work_handler(struct work_struct *work)
  */
 int
 i915_wait_request(struct intel_ring_buffer *ring,
-		  uint32_t seqno,
-		  bool do_retire)
+		  uint32_t seqno)
 {
 	drm_i915_private_t *dev_priv = ring->dev->dev_private;
 	u32 ier;
@@ -1902,14 +1901,6 @@ i915_wait_request(struct intel_ring_buffer *ring,
 	if (atomic_read(&dev_priv->mm.wedged))
 		ret = -EAGAIN;
 
-	/* Directly dispatch request retiring.  While we have the work queue
-	 * to handle this, the waiter on a request often wants an associated
-	 * buffer to have made it to the inactive list, and we would need
-	 * a separate wait queue to handle that.
-	 */
-	if (ret == 0 && do_retire)
-		i915_gem_retire_requests_ring(ring);
-
 	return ret;
 }
 
@@ -1931,10 +1922,10 @@ i915_gem_object_wait_rendering(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj)
 	 * it.
 	 */
 	if (obj->active) {
-		ret = i915_wait_request(obj->ring, obj->last_rendering_seqno,
-					true);
+		ret = i915_wait_request(obj->ring, obj->last_rendering_seqno);
 		if (ret)
 			return ret;
+		i915_gem_retire_requests_ring(obj->ring);
 	}
 
 	return 0;
@@ -2117,7 +2108,7 @@ i915_gem_flush_ring(struct intel_ring_buffer *ring,
 	return 0;
 }
 
-static int i915_ring_idle(struct intel_ring_buffer *ring, bool do_retire)
+static int i915_ring_idle(struct intel_ring_buffer *ring)
 {
 	int ret;
 
@@ -2131,18 +2122,17 @@ static int i915_ring_idle(struct intel_ring_buffer *ring, bool do_retire)
 			return ret;
 	}
 
-	return i915_wait_request(ring, i915_gem_next_request_seqno(ring),
-				 do_retire);
+	return i915_wait_request(ring, i915_gem_next_request_seqno(ring));
 }
 
-int i915_gpu_idle(struct drm_device *dev, bool do_retire)
+int i915_gpu_idle(struct drm_device *dev)
 {
 	drm_i915_private_t *dev_priv = dev->dev_private;
 	int ret, i;
 
 	/* Flush everything onto the inactive list. */
 	for (i = 0; i < I915_NUM_RINGS; i++) {
-		ret = i915_ring_idle(&dev_priv->ring[i], do_retire);
+		ret = i915_ring_idle(&dev_priv->ring[i]);
 		if (ret)
 			return ret;
 	}
@@ -2331,9 +2321,7 @@ i915_gem_object_flush_fence(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj)
 	}
 
 	if (obj->last_fenced_seqno) {
-		ret = i915_wait_request(obj->ring,
-					obj->last_fenced_seqno,
-					false);
+		ret = i915_wait_request(obj->ring, obj->last_fenced_seqno);
 		if (ret)
 			return ret;
 
@@ -3394,11 +3382,12 @@ i915_gem_idle(struct drm_device *dev)
 		return 0;
 	}
 
-	ret = i915_gpu_idle(dev, true);
+	ret = i915_gpu_idle(dev);
 	if (ret) {
 		mutex_unlock(&dev->struct_mutex);
 		return ret;
 	}
+	i915_gem_retire_requests(dev);
 
 	/* Under UMS, be paranoid and evict. */
 	if (!drm_core_check_feature(dev, DRIVER_MODESET))
@@ -4025,7 +4014,7 @@ rescan:
 		 * This has a dramatic impact to reduce the number of
 		 * OOM-killer events whilst running the GPU aggressively.
 		 */
-		if (i915_gpu_idle(dev, true) == 0)
+		if (i915_gpu_idle(dev) == 0)
 			goto rescan;
 	}
 	mutex_unlock(&dev->struct_mutex);