All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
To: Nirmoy Das <nirmoy.das@intel.com>
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, matthew.d.roper@intel.com,
	dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2] drm/i915: Reduce MCR lock surface
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2023 08:44:40 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZR1eOHqOFK57OURn@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20231004120407.12251-1-nirmoy.das@intel.com>

On Wed, Oct 04, 2023 at 02:04:07PM +0200, Nirmoy Das wrote:
> Take the mcr lock only when driver needs to write into a mcr based
> tlb based registers.
> 
> To prevent GT reset interference, employ gt->reset.mutex instead, since
> intel_gt_mcr_multicast_write relies on gt->uncore->lock not being held.

This looks a lot like protecting code and not protecting data [1]

But to be really honest I'm afraid we were already doing this before
this patch but with 2 other locks instead.

[1] - https://blog.ffwll.ch/2022/07/locking-engineering.html

> 
> v2: remove unused var, flags.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Nirmoy Das <nirmoy.das@intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_tlb.c | 13 +++++--------
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_tlb.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_tlb.c
> index 139608c30d97..0ad905df4a98 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_tlb.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_tlb.c
> @@ -52,15 +52,13 @@ static void mmio_invalidate_full(struct intel_gt *gt)
>  	struct intel_engine_cs *engine;
>  	intel_engine_mask_t awake, tmp;
>  	enum intel_engine_id id;
> -	unsigned long flags;
>  
>  	if (GRAPHICS_VER(i915) < 8)
>  		return;
>  
>  	intel_uncore_forcewake_get(uncore, FORCEWAKE_ALL);
>  
> -	intel_gt_mcr_lock(gt, &flags);
> -	spin_lock(&uncore->lock); /* serialise invalidate with GT reset */
> +	mutex_lock(&gt->reset.mutex);/* serialise invalidate with GT reset */

I'm still looking at this and the commit message above and trying to understand
why we are doing this and changing the previous 2 by this other one. why?

>  
>  	awake = 0;
>  	for_each_engine(engine, gt, id) {
> @@ -68,9 +66,9 @@ static void mmio_invalidate_full(struct intel_gt *gt)
>  			continue;
>  
>  		if (engine->tlb_inv.mcr)
> -			intel_gt_mcr_multicast_write_fw(gt,
> -							engine->tlb_inv.reg.mcr_reg,
> -							engine->tlb_inv.request);
> +			intel_gt_mcr_multicast_write(gt,
> +						     engine->tlb_inv.reg.mcr_reg,
> +						     engine->tlb_inv.request);

you are already taking the forcewake_all domain above, so you wouldn't
need to convert this to the variant that grabs the forcewake underneath.

Also this is not mentioned in the commit message above.

>  		else
>  			intel_uncore_write_fw(uncore,
>  					      engine->tlb_inv.reg.reg,
> @@ -90,8 +88,7 @@ static void mmio_invalidate_full(struct intel_gt *gt)
>  	     IS_ALDERLAKE_P(i915)))
>  		intel_uncore_write_fw(uncore, GEN12_OA_TLB_INV_CR, 1);
>  
> -	spin_unlock(&uncore->lock);
> -	intel_gt_mcr_unlock(gt, flags);
> +	mutex_unlock(&gt->reset.mutex);
>  
>  	for_each_engine_masked(engine, gt, awake, tmp) {
>  		if (wait_for_invalidate(engine))
> -- 
> 2.41.0
> 

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
To: Nirmoy Das <nirmoy.das@intel.com>
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, matthew.d.roper@intel.com,
	dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, andi.shyti@linux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] drm/i915: Reduce MCR lock surface
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2023 08:44:40 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZR1eOHqOFK57OURn@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20231004120407.12251-1-nirmoy.das@intel.com>

On Wed, Oct 04, 2023 at 02:04:07PM +0200, Nirmoy Das wrote:
> Take the mcr lock only when driver needs to write into a mcr based
> tlb based registers.
> 
> To prevent GT reset interference, employ gt->reset.mutex instead, since
> intel_gt_mcr_multicast_write relies on gt->uncore->lock not being held.

This looks a lot like protecting code and not protecting data [1]

But to be really honest I'm afraid we were already doing this before
this patch but with 2 other locks instead.

[1] - https://blog.ffwll.ch/2022/07/locking-engineering.html

> 
> v2: remove unused var, flags.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Nirmoy Das <nirmoy.das@intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_tlb.c | 13 +++++--------
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_tlb.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_tlb.c
> index 139608c30d97..0ad905df4a98 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_tlb.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_tlb.c
> @@ -52,15 +52,13 @@ static void mmio_invalidate_full(struct intel_gt *gt)
>  	struct intel_engine_cs *engine;
>  	intel_engine_mask_t awake, tmp;
>  	enum intel_engine_id id;
> -	unsigned long flags;
>  
>  	if (GRAPHICS_VER(i915) < 8)
>  		return;
>  
>  	intel_uncore_forcewake_get(uncore, FORCEWAKE_ALL);
>  
> -	intel_gt_mcr_lock(gt, &flags);
> -	spin_lock(&uncore->lock); /* serialise invalidate with GT reset */
> +	mutex_lock(&gt->reset.mutex);/* serialise invalidate with GT reset */

I'm still looking at this and the commit message above and trying to understand
why we are doing this and changing the previous 2 by this other one. why?

>  
>  	awake = 0;
>  	for_each_engine(engine, gt, id) {
> @@ -68,9 +66,9 @@ static void mmio_invalidate_full(struct intel_gt *gt)
>  			continue;
>  
>  		if (engine->tlb_inv.mcr)
> -			intel_gt_mcr_multicast_write_fw(gt,
> -							engine->tlb_inv.reg.mcr_reg,
> -							engine->tlb_inv.request);
> +			intel_gt_mcr_multicast_write(gt,
> +						     engine->tlb_inv.reg.mcr_reg,
> +						     engine->tlb_inv.request);

you are already taking the forcewake_all domain above, so you wouldn't
need to convert this to the variant that grabs the forcewake underneath.

Also this is not mentioned in the commit message above.

>  		else
>  			intel_uncore_write_fw(uncore,
>  					      engine->tlb_inv.reg.reg,
> @@ -90,8 +88,7 @@ static void mmio_invalidate_full(struct intel_gt *gt)
>  	     IS_ALDERLAKE_P(i915)))
>  		intel_uncore_write_fw(uncore, GEN12_OA_TLB_INV_CR, 1);
>  
> -	spin_unlock(&uncore->lock);
> -	intel_gt_mcr_unlock(gt, flags);
> +	mutex_unlock(&gt->reset.mutex);
>  
>  	for_each_engine_masked(engine, gt, awake, tmp) {
>  		if (wait_for_invalidate(engine))
> -- 
> 2.41.0
> 

  reply	other threads:[~2023-10-04 12:45 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-10-04 12:04 [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2] drm/i915: Reduce MCR lock surface Nirmoy Das
2023-10-04 12:04 ` Nirmoy Das
2023-10-04 12:44 ` Rodrigo Vivi [this message]
2023-10-04 12:44   ` Rodrigo Vivi
2023-10-04 13:54   ` [Intel-gfx] " Nirmoy Das
2023-10-04 13:54     ` Nirmoy Das
2023-10-04 14:37     ` [Intel-gfx] " Rodrigo Vivi
2023-10-04 16:17       ` Nirmoy Das
2023-10-04 13:22 ` [Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success for drm/i915: Reduce MCR lock surface (rev2) Patchwork
2023-10-04 18:50 ` [Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.IGT: " 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=ZR1eOHqOFK57OURn@intel.com \
    --to=rodrigo.vivi@intel.com \
    --cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=matthew.d.roper@intel.com \
    --cc=nirmoy.das@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.