Commit d066b246 authored by Russell King's avatar Russell King Committed by Lucas Stach

drm/etnaviv: correct timeout calculation

The old way did clamp the jiffy conversion and thus caused the timeouts
to become negative after some time. Also it didn't work with userspace
which actually fills the upper 32bits of the 64bit timestamp value.

clock_gettime() is 32-bit on 32-bit architectures. Using 64-bit timespec
math, like we do in this commit, means that when a wrap occurs, the
specified timeout goes into the past and we can't request a timeout in
the future. As the Linux implementation of CLOCK_MONOTONIC is reasonable
and starts at 0, the first such timer wrap will occur after approx. 68
years of system uptime.
Signed-off-by: default avatarRussell King <rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk>
Signed-off-by: default avatarLucas Stach <l.stach@pengutronix.de>
parent 60cc43fc
......@@ -26,6 +26,7 @@
#include <linux/pm_runtime.h>
#include <linux/slab.h>
#include <linux/list.h>
#include <linux/time64.h>
#include <linux/types.h>
#include <linux/sizes.h>
......@@ -132,19 +133,27 @@ static inline bool fence_after_eq(u32 a, u32 b)
return (s32)(a - b) >= 0;
}
/*
* Etnaviv timeouts are specified wrt CLOCK_MONOTONIC, not jiffies.
* We need to calculate the timeout in terms of number of jiffies
* between the specified timeout and the current CLOCK_MONOTONIC time.
*/
static inline unsigned long etnaviv_timeout_to_jiffies(
const struct timespec *timeout)
{
unsigned long timeout_jiffies = timespec_to_jiffies(timeout);
unsigned long start_jiffies = jiffies;
unsigned long remaining_jiffies;
struct timespec64 ts, to;
to = timespec_to_timespec64(*timeout);
ktime_get_ts64(&ts);
/* timeouts before "now" have already expired */
if (timespec64_compare(&to, &ts) <= 0)
return 0;
if (time_after(start_jiffies, timeout_jiffies))
remaining_jiffies = 0;
else
remaining_jiffies = timeout_jiffies - start_jiffies;
ts = timespec64_sub(to, ts);
return remaining_jiffies;
return timespec64_to_jiffies(&ts);
}
#endif /* __ETNAVIV_DRV_H__ */
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment