Re: [PATCH 08/10] drm/radeon: replace pflip and sw_int counters with atomics

["Christian König" <deathsimple@vodafone.de>]

On 01.06.2012 08:30, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On Fre, 2012-06-01 at 08:19 +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
>> I think this might introduce a race condition:
>>
>> Thread 0 Thread 1
>> -------- --------
>> atomic_inc_return() returns 1
>> spin_lock_irqsave()
>> atomic_dec_and_test()
>> radeon_irq_set()
>>
>> =>  the interrupt won't be enabled.
> Hrmm, I messed up the formatting there, let me try one more time:
>
> Thread 0				Thread 1
> --------				--------
> atomic_inc_return() returns 1
> spin_lock_irqsave()
> 					atomic_dec_and_test()
> radeon_irq_set()
>
>
Nope that isn't a problem, cause what you really get in your example is:

Thread 0				Thread 1
--------				--------
atomic_inc_return() returns 1
spin_lock_irqsave()
					atomic_dec_and_test()
radeon_irq_set()
spin_unlock_irqrestore()
					spin_lock_irqsave()
					radeon_irq_set()
					spin_unlock_irqrestore()


So testing the atomic counters just determines if we need an update of 
the irq registers or not, and since a significant change will always 
trigger an update we can make sure that the irq regs are always set to 
the last known state. We might call radeon_irq_set more often than 
necessary, but that won't hurt us and is really unlikely.

Also I have found the real reason why using the atomic for preventing ih 
recursion didn't worked as expected - it was just a stupid typo in my 
patch.  But thanks for the comment anyway, it got me to look into the 
right direction for the bug.

Cheers,
Christian.
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel