All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
To: "Ville Syrjälä" <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915/display: Restore dsparb_lock.
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2023 14:09:01 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZAuATTy9LAxaW2rI@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZAtaTkXQ2UsLX21w@intel.com>

On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 06:26:54PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 05:03:52PM -0500, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 12:03:19AM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 08, 2023 at 11:58:58AM -0500, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> > > > uncore->lock only protects the forcewake domain itself,
> > > > not the register accesses.
> > > > 
> > > > uncore's _fw alternatives are for cases where the domains
> > > > are not needed because we are sure that they are already
> > > > awake.
> > > > 
> > > > So the move towards the uncore's _fw alternatives seems
> > > > right, however using the uncore-lock to protect the dsparb
> > > > registers seems an abuse of the uncore-lock.
> > > > 
> > > > Let's restore the previous individual lock and try to get
> > > > rid of the direct uncore accesses from the display code.
> > > > 
> > > > Cc: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
> > > > Cc: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/i9xx_wm.c            | 13 ++-----------
> > > >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_core.h |  3 +++
> > > >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_driver.c                |  1 +
> > > >  3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/i9xx_wm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/i9xx_wm.c
> > > > index caef72d38798..8fe0b5c63d3a 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/i9xx_wm.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/i9xx_wm.c
> > > > @@ -1771,16 +1771,7 @@ static void vlv_atomic_update_fifo(struct intel_atomic_state *state,
> > > >  
> > > >  	trace_vlv_fifo_size(crtc, sprite0_start, sprite1_start, fifo_size);
> > > >  
> > > > -	/*
> > > > -	 * uncore.lock serves a double purpose here. It allows us to
> > > > -	 * use the less expensive I915_{READ,WRITE}_FW() functions, and
> > > > -	 * it protects the DSPARB registers from getting clobbered by
> > > > -	 * parallel updates from multiple pipes.
> > > > -	 *
> > > > -	 * intel_pipe_update_start() has already disabled interrupts
> > > > -	 * for us, so a plain spin_lock() is sufficient here.
> > > > -	 */
> > > 
> > > I was wondering if we need to preserve the comment about irqs,
> > > but since this is the only place using this lock, and it's never
> > > called from an irq handler a non-irq disabling spinlock will suffice
> > > anyway.
> > > 
> > > Reviewed-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
> > 
> > thoughts on this: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/Patchwork_114868v2/fi-kbl-7567u/igt@kms_pipe_crc_basic@nonblocking-crc-frame-sequence@pipe-b-dp-1.html
> 
> This code doesn't run on that platform, so unrelated.

oh! indeed.
okay, I just triggered a rerun to get the full round... luckly...

> 
> > 
> > maybe related to the usage of this uncore.lock in
> > 
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_vblank.c
> > 
> > ?
> > 
> > Should we create another spin lock and include both of these cases?
> > (Then the irq comment is relevant again :))
> 
> We're already 4 spinlocks deep when in vblank code. Let's not add more ;)
> 
> > 
> > > 
> > > > -	spin_lock(&uncore->lock);
> > > > +	spin_lock(&dev_priv->display.wm.dsparb_lock);
> > > >  
> > > >  	switch (crtc->pipe) {
> > > >  	case PIPE_A:
> > > > @@ -1840,7 +1831,7 @@ static void vlv_atomic_update_fifo(struct intel_atomic_state *state,
> > > >  
> > > >  	intel_uncore_posting_read_fw(uncore, DSPARB);
> > > >  
> > > > -	spin_unlock(&uncore->lock);
> > > > +	spin_unlock(&dev_priv->display.wm.dsparb_lock);
> > > >  }
> > > >  
> > > >  #undef VLV_FIFO
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_core.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_core.h
> > > > index fdab7bb93a7d..68c6bfb91dbe 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_core.h
> > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_core.h
> > > > @@ -253,6 +253,9 @@ struct intel_wm {
> > > >  	 */
> > > >  	struct mutex wm_mutex;
> > > >  
> > > > +	/* protects DSPARB registers on pre-g4x/vlv/chv */
> > > > +	spinlock_t dsparb_lock;
> > > > +
> > > >  	bool ipc_enabled;
> > > >  };
> > > >  
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_driver.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_driver.c
> > > > index a53fd339e2cc..c78e36444a12 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_driver.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_driver.c
> > > > @@ -223,6 +223,7 @@ static int i915_driver_early_probe(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> > > >  	mutex_init(&dev_priv->display.pps.mutex);
> > > >  	mutex_init(&dev_priv->display.hdcp.comp_mutex);
> > > >  	spin_lock_init(&dev_priv->display.dkl.phy_lock);
> > > > +	spin_lock_init(&dev_priv->display.wm.dsparb_lock);
> > > >  
> > > >  	i915_memcpy_init_early(dev_priv);
> > > >  	intel_runtime_pm_init_early(&dev_priv->runtime_pm);
> > > > -- 
> > > > 2.39.2
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > Ville Syrjälä
> > > Intel
> 
> -- 
> Ville Syrjälä
> Intel

  reply	other threads:[~2023-03-10 19:09 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-03-08 16:58 [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915/display: Restore dsparb_lock Rodrigo Vivi
2023-03-08 16:58 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/2] drm/i915/i9xx_wm: Prefer intel_de functions over intel_uncore Rodrigo Vivi
2023-03-08 17:50   ` Ville Syrjälä
2023-03-08 17:56     ` Rodrigo Vivi
2023-03-08 18:18       ` Ville Syrjälä
2023-03-08 21:53         ` Ville Syrjälä
2023-03-08 22:03 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915/display: Restore dsparb_lock Ville Syrjälä
2023-03-09 22:03   ` Rodrigo Vivi
2023-03-10 16:26     ` Ville Syrjälä
2023-03-10 19:09       ` Rodrigo Vivi [this message]
2023-03-09 21:55 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: failure for series starting with [1/2] drm/i915/display: Restore dsparb_lock. (rev2) Patchwork
2023-03-10 20:08 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: failure for series starting with [1/2] drm/i915/display: Restore dsparb_lock. (rev3) Patchwork
2023-03-24 19:16 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.CHECKPATCH: warning for series starting with [1/2] drm/i915/display: Restore dsparb_lock. (rev4) Patchwork
2023-03-24 19:16 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.SPARSE: " Patchwork
2023-03-24 19:17 ` [Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success " Patchwork
2023-03-25  1:42 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.IGT: failure " Patchwork
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2023-03-27 16:12 [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915/display: Restore dsparb_lock Rodrigo Vivi
2023-03-28 16:22 ` Jani Nikula
2023-03-29 19:32   ` Rodrigo Vivi

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=ZAuATTy9LAxaW2rI@intel.com \
    --to=rodrigo.vivi@intel.com \
    --cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=jani.nikula@intel.com \
    --cc=ville.syrjala@linux.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.