Re: [KERNEL] Regression bug in drm/i915, Wrong assumption in commit e11aa36 breaks suspend on at least lenovo x61

Re: [KERNEL] Regression bug in drm/i915, Wrong assumption in commit e11aa36 breaks suspend on at least lenovo x61

[Jani Nikula]

On Tue, 17 Feb 2015, Klaus Ethgen <Klaus+lkml@ethgen.de> wrote:
> After solving  the conflicts, I applied the revert (see attachment) to
> v3.18.7. I think it should also apply to the current head. With that
> patch, suspend is working again on that version.
>
> However, I have not to deep knowledge of that subsystem, so please,
> someone who have, have a deeper look into it. I especially do not know
> if the lines in .../intel_pm.c are correct or better leaving them as
> they are in v3.18.7.
>
> I want to have it working on a version that I know is stable before
> asking to pull it to head.

Hi Klaus, we fear this patch may hide the actual cause. Would be useful
to get a better description of what happens, along with a dmesg with
drm.debug=14 module parameter set. This might clutter the mailing list,
would you mind filing a bug at [1] and attach the info there?

Thanks,
Jani.

[1] https://bugs.freedesktop.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=DRI&component=DRM/Intel



-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Technology Center

Re: [Intel-gfx] [KERNEL] Regression bug in drm/i915, Wrong assumption in commit e11aa36 breaks suspend on at least lenovo x61

[Imre Deak]

On ke, 2015-02-18 at 17:39 +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Feb 2015, Klaus Ethgen <Klaus+lkml@ethgen.de> wrote:
> > After solving  the conflicts, I applied the revert (see attachment) to
> > v3.18.7. I think it should also apply to the current head. With that
> > patch, suspend is working again on that version.
> >
> > However, I have not to deep knowledge of that subsystem, so please,
> > someone who have, have a deeper look into it. I especially do not know
> > if the lines in .../intel_pm.c are correct or better leaving them as
> > they are in v3.18.7.
> >
> > I want to have it working on a version that I know is stable before
> > asking to pull it to head.
> 
> Hi Klaus, we fear this patch may hide the actual cause. Would be useful
> to get a better description of what happens, along with a dmesg with
> drm.debug=14 module parameter set. This might clutter the mailing list,
> would you mind filing a bug at [1] and attach the info there?
> 
> Thanks,
> Jani.
> 
> [1] https://bugs.freedesktop.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=DRI&component=DRM/Intel

In addition to the above could you also try the following patch and
provide a dmesg log on the bugzilla ticket - at this point only to try
to narrow down the issue?:

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
index d358ce8..02c65f4 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
@@ -4466,6 +4466,14 @@ static irqreturn_t i965_irq_handler(int irq, void *arg)
 		I915_DISPLAY_PLANE_A_FLIP_PENDING_INTERRUPT |
 		I915_DISPLAY_PLANE_B_FLIP_PENDING_INTERRUPT;
 
+	if (!intel_irqs_enabled(dev_priv)) {
+		if (printk_ratelimit())
+			DRM_ERROR("spurious/shared interrupt iir %08x imr %08x ier %08x\n",
+				  I915_READ(IIR), I915_READ(IMR), I915_READ(IER));
+
+		return IRQ_NONE;
+	}
+
 	iir = I915_READ(IIR);
 
 	for (;;) {
@@ -4766,7 +4774,10 @@ void intel_runtime_pm_disable_interrupts(struct drm_device *dev)
 	struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = dev->dev_private;
 
 	dev->driver->irq_uninstall(dev);
+
+	spin_lock_irq(&dev_priv->irq_lock);
 	dev_priv->pm._irqs_disabled = true;
+	spin_unlock_irq(&dev_priv->irq_lock);
 }
 
 /* Restore interrupts so we can recover from runtime PM. */
@@ -4774,7 +4785,10 @@ void intel_runtime_pm_restore_interrupts(struct drm_device *dev)
 {
 	struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = dev->dev_private;
 
+	spin_lock_irq(&dev_priv->irq_lock);
 	dev_priv->pm._irqs_disabled = false;
+	spin_unlock_irq(&dev_priv->irq_lock);
+
 	dev->driver->irq_preinstall(dev);
 	dev->driver->irq_postinstall(dev);
 }

Re: [KERNEL] Regression bug in drm/i915, Wrong assumption in commit e11aa36 breaks suspend on at least lenovo x61

[Dave Gordon]

On 18/02/15 16:24, Imre Deak wrote:
> On ke, 2015-02-18 at 17:39 +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Feb 2015, Klaus Ethgen <Klaus+lkml@ethgen.de> wrote:
>>> After solving  the conflicts, I applied the revert (see attachment) to
>>> v3.18.7. I think it should also apply to the current head. With that
>>> patch, suspend is working again on that version.
>>>
>>> However, I have not to deep knowledge of that subsystem, so please,
>>> someone who have, have a deeper look into it. I especially do not know
>>> if the lines in .../intel_pm.c are correct or better leaving them as
>>> they are in v3.18.7.
>>>
>>> I want to have it working on a version that I know is stable before
>>> asking to pull it to head.
>>
>> Hi Klaus, we fear this patch may hide the actual cause. Would be useful
>> to get a better description of what happens, along with a dmesg with
>> drm.debug=14 module parameter set. This might clutter the mailing list,
>> would you mind filing a bug at [1] and attach the info there?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jani.
>>
>> [1] https://bugs.freedesktop.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=DRI&component=DRM/Intel
> 
> In addition to the above could you also try the following patch and
> provide a dmesg log on the bugzilla ticket - at this point only to try
> to narrow down the issue?:
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
> index d358ce8..02c65f4 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
> @@ -4466,6 +4466,14 @@ static irqreturn_t i965_irq_handler(int irq, void *arg)
>  		I915_DISPLAY_PLANE_A_FLIP_PENDING_INTERRUPT |
>  		I915_DISPLAY_PLANE_B_FLIP_PENDING_INTERRUPT;
>  
> +	if (!intel_irqs_enabled(dev_priv)) {
> +		if (printk_ratelimit())
> +			DRM_ERROR("spurious/shared interrupt iir %08x imr %08x ier %08x\n",
> +				  I915_READ(IIR), I915_READ(IMR), I915_READ(IER));
> +
> +		return IRQ_NONE;
> +	}
> +
>  	iir = I915_READ(IIR);
>  
>  	for (;;) {
> @@ -4766,7 +4774,10 @@ void intel_runtime_pm_disable_interrupts(struct drm_device *dev)
>  	struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = dev->dev_private;
>  
>  	dev->driver->irq_uninstall(dev);
> +
> +	spin_lock_irq(&dev_priv->irq_lock);
>  	dev_priv->pm._irqs_disabled = true;
> +	spin_unlock_irq(&dev_priv->irq_lock);
>  }
>  
>  /* Restore interrupts so we can recover from runtime PM. */
> @@ -4774,7 +4785,10 @@ void intel_runtime_pm_restore_interrupts(struct drm_device *dev)
>  {
>  	struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = dev->dev_private;
>  
> +	spin_lock_irq(&dev_priv->irq_lock);
>  	dev_priv->pm._irqs_disabled = false;
> +	spin_unlock_irq(&dev_priv->irq_lock);
> +
>  	dev->driver->irq_preinstall(dev);
>  	dev->driver->irq_postinstall(dev);
>  }

Surely surrounding (what ought to be) an atomic assignment to a single
variable cannot make a difference? Unless it's the memory barrier
semantics that have some effect? It seems unlikely that the compiler has
deferred the write to the variable past the pre/postinstall calls that
actually enable the h/w interrupts, but maybe we should add "volatile"
just in case?

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

Re: [Intel-gfx] [KERNEL] Regression bug in drm/i915, Wrong assumption in commit e11aa36 breaks suspend on at least lenovo x61

[Imre Deak]

On Thu, 2015-02-19 at 10:47 +0000, Dave Gordon wrote:
> On 18/02/15 16:24, Imre Deak wrote:
> > On ke, 2015-02-18 at 17:39 +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> >> On Tue, 17 Feb 2015, Klaus Ethgen <Klaus+lkml@ethgen.de> wrote:
> >>> After solving  the conflicts, I applied the revert (see attachment) to
> >>> v3.18.7. I think it should also apply to the current head. With that
> >>> patch, suspend is working again on that version.
> >>>
> >>> However, I have not to deep knowledge of that subsystem, so please,
> >>> someone who have, have a deeper look into it. I especially do not know
> >>> if the lines in .../intel_pm.c are correct or better leaving them as
> >>> they are in v3.18.7.
> >>>
> >>> I want to have it working on a version that I know is stable before
> >>> asking to pull it to head.
> >>
> >> Hi Klaus, we fear this patch may hide the actual cause. Would be useful
> >> to get a better description of what happens, along with a dmesg with
> >> drm.debug=14 module parameter set. This might clutter the mailing list,
> >> would you mind filing a bug at [1] and attach the info there?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Jani.
> >>
> >> [1] https://bugs.freedesktop.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=DRI&component=DRM/Intel
> > 
> > In addition to the above could you also try the following patch and
> > provide a dmesg log on the bugzilla ticket - at this point only to try
> > to narrow down the issue?:
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
> > index d358ce8..02c65f4 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
> > @@ -4466,6 +4466,14 @@ static irqreturn_t i965_irq_handler(int irq, void *arg)
> >  		I915_DISPLAY_PLANE_A_FLIP_PENDING_INTERRUPT |
> >  		I915_DISPLAY_PLANE_B_FLIP_PENDING_INTERRUPT;
> >  
> > +	if (!intel_irqs_enabled(dev_priv)) {
> > +		if (printk_ratelimit())
> > +			DRM_ERROR("spurious/shared interrupt iir %08x imr %08x ier %08x\n",
> > +				  I915_READ(IIR), I915_READ(IMR), I915_READ(IER));
> > +
> > +		return IRQ_NONE;
> > +	}
> > +
> >  	iir = I915_READ(IIR);
> >  
> >  	for (;;) {
> > @@ -4766,7 +4774,10 @@ void intel_runtime_pm_disable_interrupts(struct drm_device *dev)
> >  	struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = dev->dev_private;
> >  
> >  	dev->driver->irq_uninstall(dev);
> > +
> > +	spin_lock_irq(&dev_priv->irq_lock);
> >  	dev_priv->pm._irqs_disabled = true;
> > +	spin_unlock_irq(&dev_priv->irq_lock);
> >  }
> >  
> >  /* Restore interrupts so we can recover from runtime PM. */
> > @@ -4774,7 +4785,10 @@ void intel_runtime_pm_restore_interrupts(struct drm_device *dev)
> >  {
> >  	struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = dev->dev_private;
> >  
> > +	spin_lock_irq(&dev_priv->irq_lock);
> >  	dev_priv->pm._irqs_disabled = false;
> > +	spin_unlock_irq(&dev_priv->irq_lock);
> > +
> >  	dev->driver->irq_preinstall(dev);
> >  	dev->driver->irq_postinstall(dev);
> >  }
> 
> Surely surrounding (what ought to be) an atomic assignment to a single
> variable cannot make a difference? Unless it's the memory barrier
> semantics that have some effect? It seems unlikely that the compiler has
> deferred the write to the variable past the pre/postinstall calls that
> actually enable the h/w interrupts, but maybe we should add "volatile"
> just in case?

spinlocks also serve as a memory barrier. volatile would guarantee only
that the compiler doesn't reorder the write, so it wouldn't be enough
alone. Otoh, we may also need to add spinlocking to the interrupt
handler if the issue turns out to be that we can't access some register
past/before intel_runtime_pm_{disable,enable}_interrupts.

--Imre

Re: [KERNEL] Regression bug in drm/i915, Wrong assumption in commit e11aa36 breaks suspend on at least lenovo x61

[Dave Gordon]

On 19/02/15 11:08, Deak, Imre wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-02-19 at 10:47 +0000, Dave Gordon wrote:
>> On 18/02/15 16:24, Imre Deak wrote:
>>> On ke, 2015-02-18 at 17:39 +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 17 Feb 2015, Klaus Ethgen <Klaus+lkml@ethgen.de> wrote:
>>>>> After solving  the conflicts, I applied the revert (see attachment) to
>>>>> v3.18.7. I think it should also apply to the current head. With that
>>>>> patch, suspend is working again on that version.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, I have not to deep knowledge of that subsystem, so please,
>>>>> someone who have, have a deeper look into it. I especially do not know
>>>>> if the lines in .../intel_pm.c are correct or better leaving them as
>>>>> they are in v3.18.7.
>>>>>
>>>>> I want to have it working on a version that I know is stable before
>>>>> asking to pull it to head.
>>>>
>>>> Hi Klaus, we fear this patch may hide the actual cause. Would be useful
>>>> to get a better description of what happens, along with a dmesg with
>>>> drm.debug=14 module parameter set. This might clutter the mailing list,
>>>> would you mind filing a bug at [1] and attach the info there?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Jani.
>>>>
>>>> [1] https://bugs.freedesktop.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=DRI&component=DRM/Intel
>>>
>>> In addition to the above could you also try the following patch and
>>> provide a dmesg log on the bugzilla ticket - at this point only to try
>>> to narrow down the issue?:
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
>>> index d358ce8..02c65f4 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
>>> @@ -4466,6 +4466,14 @@ static irqreturn_t i965_irq_handler(int irq, void *arg)
>>>  		I915_DISPLAY_PLANE_A_FLIP_PENDING_INTERRUPT |
>>>  		I915_DISPLAY_PLANE_B_FLIP_PENDING_INTERRUPT;
>>>  
>>> +	if (!intel_irqs_enabled(dev_priv)) {
>>> +		if (printk_ratelimit())
>>> +			DRM_ERROR("spurious/shared interrupt iir %08x imr %08x ier %08x\n",
>>> +				  I915_READ(IIR), I915_READ(IMR), I915_READ(IER));
>>> +
>>> +		return IRQ_NONE;
>>> +	}
>>> +
>>>  	iir = I915_READ(IIR);
>>>  
>>>  	for (;;) {
>>> @@ -4766,7 +4774,10 @@ void intel_runtime_pm_disable_interrupts(struct drm_device *dev)
>>>  	struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = dev->dev_private;
>>>  
>>>  	dev->driver->irq_uninstall(dev);
>>> +
>>> +	spin_lock_irq(&dev_priv->irq_lock);
>>>  	dev_priv->pm._irqs_disabled = true;
>>> +	spin_unlock_irq(&dev_priv->irq_lock);
>>>  }
>>>  
>>>  /* Restore interrupts so we can recover from runtime PM. */
>>> @@ -4774,7 +4785,10 @@ void intel_runtime_pm_restore_interrupts(struct drm_device *dev)
>>>  {
>>>  	struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = dev->dev_private;
>>>  
>>> +	spin_lock_irq(&dev_priv->irq_lock);
>>>  	dev_priv->pm._irqs_disabled = false;
>>> +	spin_unlock_irq(&dev_priv->irq_lock);
>>> +
>>>  	dev->driver->irq_preinstall(dev);
>>>  	dev->driver->irq_postinstall(dev);
>>>  }
>>
>> Surely surrounding (what ought to be) an atomic assignment to a single
>> variable cannot make a difference? Unless it's the memory barrier
>> semantics that have some effect? It seems unlikely that the compiler has
>> deferred the write to the variable past the pre/postinstall calls that
>> actually enable the h/w interrupts, but maybe we should add "volatile"
>> just in case?
> 
> spinlocks also serve as a memory barrier. volatile would guarantee only
> that the compiler doesn't reorder the write, so it wouldn't be enough
> alone. Otoh, we may also need to add spinlocking to the interrupt
> handler if the issue turns out to be that we can't access some register
> past/before intel_runtime_pm_{disable,enable}_interrupts.
> 
> --Imre

If we were getting interrupts during the enabling sequence, there would
be three possibilities:
1.	compiler has delayed writeback. This would be a compiler bug
	(IMHO) but 'volatile' might fix it.
2.	the 'restore' thread has written the value, but it isn't seen
	by the thread handling the interrupt (on a different cpu?).
	This would be a coherency issue, and a memory barrier should
	fix it. But I would have expected the variable to be in
	coherent memory anyway.
3.	the GPU h/w sending interrupts before they're enabled :(

But I suspect this might be during *disabling* the interrupt. Possibly a
race condition in which the h/w has already generated an interrupt
before it's disabled, but that interrupt has not yet been fielded; so
that by the time the interrupt handler runs (on a different CPU from the
'suspend' thread), the write to the variable can have happened and then
the new value is seen by the interrupt handler.

In which case the tweak above will reduce but not necessarily eliminate
the window; it will ensure that if the handler has got at least as far
as taking the spinlock before the suspend thread, then the write will be
delayed until the handler has finished. OTOH if the interrupt were
delayed a little bit more, this code might still get to take the
spinlock before the handler, so the unexpected value would still be seen :(

Maybe you need a two-phase uninstall?

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

Re: [Intel-gfx] [KERNEL] Regression bug in drm/i915, Wrong assumption in commit e11aa36 breaks suspend on at least lenovo x61

[Imre Deak]

On to, 2015-02-19 at 15:42 +0000, Dave Gordon wrote:
> On 19/02/15 11:08, Deak, Imre wrote:
> > On Thu, 2015-02-19 at 10:47 +0000, Dave Gordon wrote:
> >> On 18/02/15 16:24, Imre Deak wrote:
> >>> On ke, 2015-02-18 at 17:39 +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, 17 Feb 2015, Klaus Ethgen <Klaus+lkml@ethgen.de> wrote:
> >>>>> After solving  the conflicts, I applied the revert (see attachment) to
> >>>>> v3.18.7. I think it should also apply to the current head. With that
> >>>>> patch, suspend is working again on that version.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> However, I have not to deep knowledge of that subsystem, so please,
> >>>>> someone who have, have a deeper look into it. I especially do not know
> >>>>> if the lines in .../intel_pm.c are correct or better leaving them as
> >>>>> they are in v3.18.7.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I want to have it working on a version that I know is stable before
> >>>>> asking to pull it to head.
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi Klaus, we fear this patch may hide the actual cause. Would be useful
> >>>> to get a better description of what happens, along with a dmesg with
> >>>> drm.debug=14 module parameter set. This might clutter the mailing list,
> >>>> would you mind filing a bug at [1] and attach the info there?
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Jani.
> >>>>
> >>>> [1] https://bugs.freedesktop.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=DRI&component=DRM/Intel
> >>>
> >>> In addition to the above could you also try the following patch and
> >>> provide a dmesg log on the bugzilla ticket - at this point only to try
> >>> to narrow down the issue?:
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
> >>> index d358ce8..02c65f4 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
> >>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
> >>> @@ -4466,6 +4466,14 @@ static irqreturn_t i965_irq_handler(int irq, void *arg)
> >>>  		I915_DISPLAY_PLANE_A_FLIP_PENDING_INTERRUPT |
> >>>  		I915_DISPLAY_PLANE_B_FLIP_PENDING_INTERRUPT;
> >>>  
> >>> +	if (!intel_irqs_enabled(dev_priv)) {
> >>> +		if (printk_ratelimit())
> >>> +			DRM_ERROR("spurious/shared interrupt iir %08x imr %08x ier %08x\n",
> >>> +				  I915_READ(IIR), I915_READ(IMR), I915_READ(IER));
> >>> +
> >>> +		return IRQ_NONE;
> >>> +	}
> >>> +
> >>>  	iir = I915_READ(IIR);
> >>>  
> >>>  	for (;;) {
> >>> @@ -4766,7 +4774,10 @@ void intel_runtime_pm_disable_interrupts(struct drm_device *dev)
> >>>  	struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = dev->dev_private;
> >>>  
> >>>  	dev->driver->irq_uninstall(dev);
> >>> +
> >>> +	spin_lock_irq(&dev_priv->irq_lock);
> >>>  	dev_priv->pm._irqs_disabled = true;
> >>> +	spin_unlock_irq(&dev_priv->irq_lock);
> >>>  }
> >>>  
> >>>  /* Restore interrupts so we can recover from runtime PM. */
> >>> @@ -4774,7 +4785,10 @@ void intel_runtime_pm_restore_interrupts(struct drm_device *dev)
> >>>  {
> >>>  	struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = dev->dev_private;
> >>>  
> >>> +	spin_lock_irq(&dev_priv->irq_lock);
> >>>  	dev_priv->pm._irqs_disabled = false;
> >>> +	spin_unlock_irq(&dev_priv->irq_lock);
> >>> +
> >>>  	dev->driver->irq_preinstall(dev);
> >>>  	dev->driver->irq_postinstall(dev);
> >>>  }
> >>
> >> Surely surrounding (what ought to be) an atomic assignment to a single
> >> variable cannot make a difference? Unless it's the memory barrier
> >> semantics that have some effect? It seems unlikely that the compiler has
> >> deferred the write to the variable past the pre/postinstall calls that
> >> actually enable the h/w interrupts, but maybe we should add "volatile"
> >> just in case?
> > 
> > spinlocks also serve as a memory barrier. volatile would guarantee only
> > that the compiler doesn't reorder the write, so it wouldn't be enough
> > alone. Otoh, we may also need to add spinlocking to the interrupt
> > handler if the issue turns out to be that we can't access some register
> > past/before intel_runtime_pm_{disable,enable}_interrupts.
> > 
> > --Imre
> 
> If we were getting interrupts during the enabling sequence, there would
> be three possibilities:
> 1.	compiler has delayed writeback. This would be a compiler bug
> 	(IMHO) but 'volatile' might fix it.
> 2.	the 'restore' thread has written the value, but it isn't seen
> 	by the thread handling the interrupt (on a different cpu?).
> 	This would be a coherency issue, and a memory barrier should
> 	fix it. But I would have expected the variable to be in
> 	coherent memory anyway.
> 3.	the GPU h/w sending interrupts before they're enabled :(

For enabling I want to make sure _irqs_disabled=false is stored to
memory before the interrupt handler can run. This flag is in normal
write-back memory, hence you need a memory barrier which is provided by
the spin lock. I could have also used here mb() or rely on the implicit
memory barrier of the iowrite in preinstall/postinstall hooks; I didn't
since as I said we may want to add spin locking to the irq handler too
anyway.

> But I suspect this might be during *disabling* the interrupt. Possibly a
> race condition in which the h/w has already generated an interrupt
> before it's disabled, but that interrupt has not yet been fielded; so
> that by the time the interrupt handler runs (on a different CPU from the
> 'suspend' thread), the write to the variable can have happened and then
> the new value is seen by the interrupt handler.
> 
> In which case the tweak above will reduce but not necessarily eliminate
> the window; it will ensure that if the handler has got at least as far
> as taking the spinlock before the suspend thread, then the write will be
> delayed until the handler has finished. OTOH if the interrupt were
> delayed a little bit more, this code might still get to take the
> spinlock before the handler, so the unexpected value would still be seen :(
> 
> Maybe you need a two-phase uninstall?

In case we add the locking to the interrupt handler too, it doesn't
matter how much the handler is delayed. We are either before taking the
lock in intel_runtime_pm_disable_interrupts() and so the handler will
see _irqs_disabled=false, or we are after releasing the lock in
intel_runtime_pm_disable_interrupts() and the handler will see
_irqs_disabled=true and just return without doing anything.

But this patch makes already sure that the handler will see
_irqs_disabled=true eventually and I think that's enough for this test.

--Imre


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

Re: [KERNEL] Re: [KERNEL] Regression bug in drm/i915, Wrong assumption in commit e11aa36 breaks suspend on at least lenovo x61

[Klaus Ethgen]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Hi,

Am Mi den 18. Feb 2015 um 16:39 schrieb Jani Nikula:
> On Tue, 17 Feb 2015, Klaus Ethgen <Klaus+lkml@ethgen.de> wrote:
> > After solving  the conflicts, I applied the revert (see attachment) to
> > v3.18.7. I think it should also apply to the current head. With that
> > patch, suspend is working again on that version.
> >
> > However, I have not to deep knowledge of that subsystem, so please,
> > someone who have, have a deeper look into it. I especially do not know
> > if the lines in .../intel_pm.c are correct or better leaving them as
> > they are in v3.18.7.
> >
> > I want to have it working on a version that I know is stable before
> > asking to pull it to head.
> 
> Hi Klaus, we fear this patch may hide the actual cause.

That might be. But that might be a second step, to find the actual
cause. I think first the patch that causes the problem should be
fixed/reverted to have a working kernel and the next step would be to
find the real cause.

I would happily help to solve both.

> Would be useful to get a better description of what happens,

Ask.. English is not my mother thong and I am not that good in finding
descriptions. ;-)

> along with a dmesg with drm.debug=14 module parameter set.

Oh, I would be happy to be able to provide that. But if you look at the
first mail in this thread, I asked days before how to debug that cause.
The problem is that it stops in the middle of the suspend right after
switching of screen. There is no way to get it back working after that
and so no dmesg. I have to hard switch off the laptop after that.

> This might clutter the mailing list, would you mind filing a bug at
> [1] and attach the info there?

One another account to just fill one bug? Or is there a way to fill the
bug without creating an account? I would really like to not create
another account. I still have that many from systems that forced me to
create an account for just one bug report.

Am Mi den 18. Feb 2015 um 17:24 schrieb Imre Deak:
> In addition to the above could you also try the following patch and
> provide a dmesg log on the bugzilla ticket - at this point only to try
> to narrow down the issue?:
> 
[PATCH]

Yes, I can do that. But can you tell me how to get dmesg output when the
problem happened? After that the box is unusable and I have to hard
switch off it. There is no way to get any dmesg output after the bug
happened.

Regards
   Klaus

Ps. I can forward the first two messages that I posted on kernel ML.
    That should also be available online.
- -- 
Klaus Ethgen                              http://www.ethgen.ch/
pub  4096R/4E20AF1C 2011-05-16   Klaus Ethgen <Klaus@Ethgen.de>
Fingerprint: 85D4 CA42 952C 949B 1753  62B3 79D0 B06F 4E20 AF1C
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
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=CE8V
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Re: [KERNEL] Re: [KERNEL] Regression bug in drm/i915, Wrong assumption in commit e11aa36 breaks suspend on at least lenovo x61

[Imre Deak]

On Wed, 2015-02-18 at 20:03 +0100, Klaus Ethgen wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Am Mi den 18. Feb 2015 um 16:39 schrieb Jani Nikula:
> > On Tue, 17 Feb 2015, Klaus Ethgen <Klaus+lkml@ethgen.de> wrote:
> > > After solving  the conflicts, I applied the revert (see attachment) to
> > > v3.18.7. I think it should also apply to the current head. With that
> > > patch, suspend is working again on that version.
> > >
> > > However, I have not to deep knowledge of that subsystem, so please,
> > > someone who have, have a deeper look into it. I especially do not know
> > > if the lines in .../intel_pm.c are correct or better leaving them as
> > > they are in v3.18.7.
> > >
> > > I want to have it working on a version that I know is stable before
> > > asking to pull it to head.
> > 
> > Hi Klaus, we fear this patch may hide the actual cause.
> 
> That might be. But that might be a second step, to find the actual
> cause. I think first the patch that causes the problem should be
> fixed/reverted to have a working kernel and the next step would be to
> find the real cause.
> 
> I would happily help to solve both.
> 
> > Would be useful to get a better description of what happens,
> 
> Ask.. English is not my mother thong and I am not that good in finding
> descriptions. ;-)
> 
> > along with a dmesg with drm.debug=14 module parameter set.
> 
> Oh, I would be happy to be able to provide that. But if you look at the
> first mail in this thread, I asked days before how to debug that cause.
> The problem is that it stops in the middle of the suspend right after
> switching of screen. There is no way to get it back working after that
> and so no dmesg. I have to hard switch off the laptop after that.
> 
> > This might clutter the mailing list, would you mind filing a bug at
> > [1] and attach the info there?
> 
> One another account to just fill one bug? Or is there a way to fill the
> bug without creating an account? I would really like to not create
> another account. I still have that many from systems that forced me to
> create an account for just one bug report.

Yes, you need an account to file a freedesktop bug. This would be really
great to keep records, but if this isn't possible for you, then please
email the logs to us. In the latter case I would also suggest not CC'ing
the mailing lists to reduce the clutter.

> Am Mi den 18. Feb 2015 um 17:24 schrieb Imre Deak:
> > In addition to the above could you also try the following patch and
> > provide a dmesg log on the bugzilla ticket - at this point only to try
> > to narrow down the issue?:
> > 
> [PATCH]
> 
> Yes, I can do that. But can you tell me how to get dmesg output when the
> problem happened? After that the box is unusable and I have to hard
> switch off it. There is no way to get any dmesg output after the bug
> happened.

Thanks. I'm hoping that the patch also gets rid of the problem, so you
could get the dmesg log easily. If the patch doesn't get rid of the hang
it'd be great if you could still try setting up netconsole and get the
log from another machine. To get a trace closer to the hang you could
also try
# echo N > /sys/module/printk/parameters/console_suspend
before suspending.

Thanks,
Imre

> Ps. I can forward the first two messages that I posted on kernel ML.
>     That should also be available online.

Re: [KERNEL] Re: [KERNEL] Regression bug in drm/i915, Wrong assumption in commit e11aa36 breaks suspend on at least lenovo x61

[Daniel Vetter]

On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 8:03 PM, Klaus Ethgen <Klaus+lkml@ethgen.de> wrote:
> Am Mi den 18. Feb 2015 um 16:39 schrieb Jani Nikula:
>> On Tue, 17 Feb 2015, Klaus Ethgen <Klaus+lkml@ethgen.de> wrote:
>> > After solving  the conflicts, I applied the revert (see attachment) to
>> > v3.18.7. I think it should also apply to the current head. With that
>> > patch, suspend is working again on that version.
>> >
>> > However, I have not to deep knowledge of that subsystem, so please,
>> > someone who have, have a deeper look into it. I especially do not know
>> > if the lines in .../intel_pm.c are correct or better leaving them as
>> > they are in v3.18.7.
>> >
>> > I want to have it working on a version that I know is stable before
>> > asking to pull it to head.
>>
>> Hi Klaus, we fear this patch may hide the actual cause.
>
> That might be. But that might be a second step, to find the actual
> cause. I think first the patch that causes the problem should be
> fixed/reverted to have a working kernel and the next step would be to
> find the real cause.

I think the rever also breaks soix on newer platforms. Instead I think
intel_runtime_pm_disable_interrupts needs to grow a synchronize_irq()
after having disabled all the interrupt sources. But that's just
drive-by debugging, I might be off the charts ;-)
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel