From: Matthew Auld <matthew.auld@intel.com>
To: intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org
Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
Subject: [Intel-xe] [PATCH v5 7/7] drm/xe: Use atomic for mem_access.ref
Date: Wed, 17 May 2023 16:22:44 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230517152244.348171-7-matthew.auld@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230517152244.348171-1-matthew.auld@intel.com>
From: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>
xe_guc_ct_fast_path() is called from an irq context, and cannot lock
the mutex used by xe_device_mem_access_ongoing().
Fortunately it is easy to fix if we switch the ref over to an atomic.
Signed-off-by: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Matthew Auld <matthew.auld@intel.com>
Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
Cc: Thomas Hellström <thomas.hellstrom@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device.c | 34 ++++++++++++----------------
drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device_types.h | 4 ++--
2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device.c
index 55f974b1ee78..01ef88bf099d 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device.c
@@ -403,30 +403,23 @@ u32 xe_device_ccs_bytes(struct xe_device *xe, u64 size)
DIV_ROUND_UP(size, NUM_BYTES_PER_CCS_BYTE) : 0;
}
-void xe_device_assert_mem_access(struct xe_device *xe)
-{
- if (xe_pm_read_callback_task(xe) == current)
- return;
-
- XE_WARN_ON(!xe->mem_access.ref);
-}
-
bool xe_device_mem_access_ongoing(struct xe_device *xe)
{
- bool ret;
-
if (xe_pm_read_callback_task(xe) == current)
return true;
- mutex_lock(&xe->mem_access.lock);
- ret = xe->mem_access.ref;
- mutex_unlock(&xe->mem_access.lock);
+ return atomic_read(&xe->mem_access.ref);
+}
- return ret;
+void xe_device_assert_mem_access(struct xe_device *xe)
+{
+ XE_WARN_ON(!xe_device_mem_access_ongoing(xe));
}
void xe_device_mem_access_get(struct xe_device *xe)
{
+ int ref;
+
/*
* This looks racy, but should be fine since the pm_callback_task only
* transitions from NULL -> current (and back to NULL again), during the
@@ -446,23 +439,26 @@ void xe_device_mem_access_get(struct xe_device *xe)
* for example just on the 0 -> 1.
*/
mutex_lock(&xe->mem_access.lock);
- if (xe->mem_access.ref == 0)
+ if (atomic_read(&xe->mem_access.ref) == 0)
xe->mem_access.hold_rpm = xe_pm_runtime_resume_and_get(xe);
- xe->mem_access.ref++;
+ ref = atomic_inc_return(&xe->mem_access.ref);
mutex_unlock(&xe->mem_access.lock);
- XE_WARN_ON(xe->mem_access.ref == S32_MAX);
+ XE_WARN_ON(ref == S32_MAX);
}
void xe_device_mem_access_put(struct xe_device *xe)
{
+ int ref;
+
if (xe_pm_read_callback_task(xe) == current)
return;
mutex_lock(&xe->mem_access.lock);
- if (--xe->mem_access.ref == 0 && xe->mem_access.hold_rpm)
+ ref = atomic_dec_return(&xe->mem_access.ref);
+ if (ref == 0 && xe->mem_access.hold_rpm)
xe_pm_runtime_put(xe);
mutex_unlock(&xe->mem_access.lock);
- XE_WARN_ON(xe->mem_access.ref < 0);
+ XE_WARN_ON(ref < 0);
}
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device_types.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device_types.h
index b0c69fcb4065..b3e96e48064a 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device_types.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device_types.h
@@ -258,11 +258,11 @@ struct xe_device {
struct {
/**
* @lock: Serialize xe_device_mem_access users,
- * and protect the below internal state, like @ref.
+ * and protect the below internal state.
*/
struct mutex lock;
/** @ref: ref count of memory accesses */
- s32 ref;
+ atomic_t ref;
/** @hold_rpm: need to put rpm ref back at the end */
bool hold_rpm;
} mem_access;
--
2.40.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-05-17 15:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-05-17 15:22 [Intel-xe] [PATCH v5 1/7] drm: fix drmm_mutex_init() Matthew Auld
2023-05-17 15:22 ` Matthew Auld
2023-05-17 15:22 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH v5 2/7] Revert "drm/xe: Use atomic instead of mutex for xe_device_mem_access_ongoing" Matthew Auld
2023-05-17 15:22 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH v5 3/7] drm/xe: don't allocate under ct->lock Matthew Auld
2023-05-17 15:50 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2023-05-17 15:22 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH v5 4/7] drm/xe: keep pulling mem_access_get further back Matthew Auld
2023-05-17 15:53 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2023-05-17 15:22 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH v5 5/7] drm/xe/ggtt: prime ggtt->lock against FS_RECLAIM Matthew Auld
2023-05-17 15:48 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2023-05-17 16:21 ` Matthew Auld
2023-05-17 15:22 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH v5 6/7] drm/xe: fix xe_device_mem_access_get() races Matthew Auld
2023-05-19 20:25 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2023-05-22 9:49 ` Matthew Auld
2023-05-17 15:22 ` Matthew Auld [this message]
2023-05-17 15:25 ` [Intel-xe] ✓ CI.Patch_applied: success for series starting with [v5,1/7] drm: fix drmm_mutex_init() Patchwork
2023-05-17 15:27 ` [Intel-xe] ✓ CI.KUnit: " Patchwork
2023-05-17 15:31 ` [Intel-xe] ✓ CI.Build: " Patchwork
2023-05-17 15:49 ` [Intel-xe] ○ CI.BAT: info " Patchwork
2023-05-17 16:05 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH v5 1/7] " Stanislaw Gruszka
2023-05-17 16:05 ` Stanislaw Gruszka
2023-05-17 16:29 ` [Intel-xe] " Matthew Auld
2023-05-17 16:29 ` Matthew Auld
2023-05-17 17:03 ` [Intel-xe] " Thomas Hellström
2023-05-17 17:03 ` Thomas Hellström
2023-05-17 17:47 ` [Intel-xe] " Thomas Zimmermann
2023-05-17 17:47 ` Thomas Zimmermann
2023-05-17 16:21 ` [Intel-xe] " Thomas Zimmermann
2023-05-17 16:21 ` Thomas Zimmermann
2023-05-17 17:04 ` [Intel-xe] " Matthew Auld
2023-05-17 17:04 ` Matthew Auld
2023-05-17 17:43 ` [Intel-xe] " Thomas Zimmermann
2023-05-17 17:43 ` Thomas Zimmermann
2023-05-18 9:51 ` [Intel-xe] ✓ CI.Patch_applied: success for series starting with [v5,1/7] drm: fix drmm_mutex_init() (rev2) Patchwork
2023-05-18 9:52 ` [Intel-xe] ✓ CI.KUnit: " Patchwork
2023-05-18 9:56 ` [Intel-xe] ✓ CI.Build: " Patchwork
2023-05-18 10:16 ` [Intel-xe] ○ CI.BAT: info " Patchwork
2023-05-19 15:49 ` [Intel-xe] ✓ CI.Patch_applied: success for series starting with [v5,1/7] drm: fix drmm_mutex_init() (rev3) Patchwork
2023-05-19 15:50 ` [Intel-xe] ✓ CI.KUnit: " Patchwork
2023-05-19 15:54 ` [Intel-xe] ✓ CI.Build: " Patchwork
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20230517152244.348171-7-matthew.auld@intel.com \
--to=matthew.auld@intel.com \
--cc=intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=rodrigo.vivi@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.