Re: [Intel-gfx] [Intel-xe] [PATCH] drm/i915: don't use uncore spinlock to protect critical section in vblank

["Ville Syrjälä" <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>]

On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 01:27:00PM +0200, Luca Coelho wrote:
> Since we're abstracting the display code from the underlying driver
> (i.e. i915 vs xe), we can't use the uncore's spinlock to protect
> critical sections of our code.
> 
> After further inspection, it seems that the spinlock is not needed at
> all and this can be handled by disabling preemption and interrupts
> instead.

uncore.lock has multiple purposes:
1. serialize all register accesses to the same cacheline as on
   certain platforms that can hang the machine
2. protect the forcewake/etc. state

1 is relevant here, 2 is not.

> 
> Change the vblank code so that we don't use uncore's spinlock anymore
> and update the comments accordingly.  While at it, also remove
> comments pointing out where to insert RT-specific calls, since we're
> now explicitly calling preempt_disable/enable() anywyay.
> 
> Cc: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>
> Cc: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
> Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Luca Coelho <luciano.coelho@intel.com>
> ---
> 
> Note: this replaces my previous patch discussed here:
> https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/563857/
> 
> 
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_vblank.c | 32 ++++++++++-----------
>  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_vblank.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_vblank.c
> index 2cec2abf9746..28e38960806e 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_vblank.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_vblank.c
> @@ -302,13 +302,12 @@ static bool i915_get_crtc_scanoutpos(struct drm_crtc *_crtc,
>  	}
>  
>  	/*
> -	 * Lock uncore.lock, as we will do multiple timing critical raw
> -	 * register reads, potentially with preemption disabled, so the
> -	 * following code must not block on uncore.lock.
> +	 * We will do multiple timing critical raw register reads, so
> +	 * disable interrupts and preemption to make sure this code
> +	 * doesn't get blocked.
>  	 */
> -	spin_lock_irqsave(&dev_priv->uncore.lock, irqflags);
> -
> -	/* preempt_disable_rt() should go right here in PREEMPT_RT patchset. */
> +	local_irq_save(irqflags);
> +	preempt_disable();
>  
>  	/* Get optional system timestamp before query. */
>  	if (stime)
> @@ -372,9 +371,8 @@ static bool i915_get_crtc_scanoutpos(struct drm_crtc *_crtc,
>  	if (etime)
>  		*etime = ktime_get();
>  
> -	/* preempt_enable_rt() should go right here in PREEMPT_RT patchset. */
> -
> -	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dev_priv->uncore.lock, irqflags);
> +	preempt_enable();
> +	local_irq_restore(irqflags);
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * While in vblank, position will be negative
> @@ -408,13 +406,14 @@ bool intel_crtc_get_vblank_timestamp(struct drm_crtc *crtc, int *max_error,
>  
>  int intel_get_crtc_scanline(struct intel_crtc *crtc)
>  {
> -	struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = to_i915(crtc->base.dev);
>  	unsigned long irqflags;
>  	int position;
>  
> -	spin_lock_irqsave(&dev_priv->uncore.lock, irqflags);
> +	local_irq_save(irqflags);
> +	preempt_disable();
>  	position = __intel_get_crtc_scanline(crtc);
> -	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dev_priv->uncore.lock, irqflags);
> +	preempt_enable();
> +	local_irq_restore(irqflags);
>  
>  	return position;
>  }
> @@ -528,16 +527,16 @@ void intel_crtc_update_active_timings(const struct intel_crtc_state *crtc_state,
>  	 * Belts and suspenders locking to guarantee everyone sees 100%
>  	 * consistent state during fastset seamless refresh rate changes.
>  	 *
> -	 * vblank_time_lock takes care of all drm_vblank.c stuff, and
> -	 * uncore.lock takes care of __intel_get_crtc_scanline() which
> -	 * may get called elsewhere as well.
> +	 * vblank_time_lock takes care of all drm_vblank.c stuff.  For
> +	 * __intel_get_crtc_scanline() we don't need locking or
> +	 * disabling preemption and irqs, since this is already done
> +	 * by the vblank_time_lock spinlock calls.
>  	 *
>  	 * TODO maybe just protect everything (including
>  	 * __intel_get_crtc_scanline()) with vblank_time_lock?
>  	 * Need to audit everything to make sure it's safe.
>  	 */
>  	spin_lock_irqsave(&i915->drm.vblank_time_lock, irqflags);
> -	spin_lock(&i915->uncore.lock);
>  
>  	drm_calc_timestamping_constants(&crtc->base, &adjusted_mode);
>  
> @@ -547,6 +546,5 @@ void intel_crtc_update_active_timings(const struct intel_crtc_state *crtc_state,
>  
>  	crtc->scanline_offset = intel_crtc_scanline_offset(crtc_state);
>  
> -	spin_unlock(&i915->uncore.lock);
>  	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&i915->drm.vblank_time_lock, irqflags);
>  }
> -- 
> 2.39.2

-- 
Ville Syrjälä
Intel