Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: fix rps.vlv_work initialization

[Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2468 bytes --]

On Tue, 2013-10-01 at 18:55 +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 06:11:26PM +0300, Imre Deak wrote:
> > During driver loading we are initializing rps.vlv_work in
> > valleyview_enable_rps() via the rps.delayed_resume_work delayed work.
> > This is too late since we are using vlv_work already via
> > i915_driver_load()->intel_uncore_sanitize()->
> > intel_disable_gt_powersave(). This at least leads to the following
> > kernel warning:
> > 
> >  INFO: trying to register non-static key.
> >  the code is fine but needs lockdep annotation.
> >  turning off the locking correctness validator.
> > 
> > Fix this by initialzing vlv_work before we call intel_uncore_sanitize().
> > 
> > The regression was introduced in
> > 
> > commit 7dcd2677ea912573d9ed4bcd629b0023b2d11505
> > Author: Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@openvz.org>
> > Date:   Wed Jul 17 10:22:58 2013 +0400
> > 
> >     drm/i915: fix long-standing SNB regression in power consumption
> >     after resume
> > 
> > though there was no good reason to initialize the static vlv_work from
> > another delayed work to begin with (especially since this will happen
> > multiple times).
> > 
> > Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=69397
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c | 4 ++--
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
> > index 698257c..2a0a340 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c
> > @@ -3894,8 +3894,6 @@ static void valleyview_enable_rps(struct drm_device *dev)
> >  				      dev_priv->rps.rpe_delay),
> >  			 dev_priv->rps.rpe_delay);
> >  
> > -	INIT_DELAYED_WORK(&dev_priv->rps.vlv_work, vlv_rps_timer_work);
> > -
> >  	valleyview_set_rps(dev_priv->dev, dev_priv->rps.rpe_delay);
> >  
> >  	gen6_enable_rps_interrupts(dev);
> > @@ -5805,5 +5803,7 @@ void intel_pm_init(struct drm_device *dev)
> >  
> >  	INIT_DELAYED_WORK(&dev_priv->rps.delayed_resume_work,
> >  			  intel_gen6_powersave_work);
> > +
> > +	INIT_DELAYED_WORK(&dev_priv->rps.vlv_work, vlv_rps_timer_work);
> 
> We're initializing rps.work in intel_irq_init(). Maybe we should try to
> keep rps related stuff together?

Yes, makes sense. I'll send v2 moving both init work to
intel_irq_init().

--Imre 


[-- Attachment #1.2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 159 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx