On 2025-11-26 08:19, Philipp Stanner wrote:

The return code of dma_fence_signal() is not really useful as there is nothing reasonable to do if a fence was already signaled. That return code shall be removed from the kernel.

Ignore dma_fence_signal()'s return code.

I think this is not correct. Looking at the comment in evict_process_worker, we use the return value to decide a race conditions where multiple threads are trying to signal the eviction fence. Only one of them should schedule the restore work. And the other ones need to increment the reference count to keep evictions balanced.

Regards,   Felix

Suggested-by: Christian König christian.koenig@amd.com Signed-off-by: Philipp Stanner phasta@kernel.org

---

drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdkfd/kfd_process.c | 5 ++--- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdkfd/kfd_process.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdkfd/kfd_process.c index ddfe30c13e9d..950fafa4b3c3 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdkfd/kfd_process.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdkfd/kfd_process.c @@ -1986,7 +1986,6 @@ kfd_process_gpuid_from_node(struct kfd_process *p, struct kfd_node *node, static int signal_eviction_fence(struct kfd_process *p) { struct dma_fence *ef;

• int ret;

rcu_read_lock(); ef = dma_fence_get_rcu_safe(&p->ef); @@ -1994,10 +1993,10 @@ static int signal_eviction_fence(struct kfd_process *p) if (!ef) return -EINVAL;

• ret = dma_fence_signal(ef);

• dma_fence_signal(ef); dma_fence_put(ef);

• return ret;

• return 0; }

static void evict_process_worker(struct work_struct *work)