From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915: properly lock gt_fifo_count
Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2011 11:46:44 +0100
Message-ID: <20111106104644.GA2940@phenom.ffwll.local>
References: <1320539464-6201-1-git-send-email-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
	<1320540095-1346-1-git-send-email-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
	<d08817$23njts@azsmga001.ch.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org>
Received: from mail-fx0-f49.google.com (mail-fx0-f49.google.com
	[209.85.161.49])
	by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD8679E80B
	for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>;
	Sun,  6 Nov 2011 02:45:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: by faaq17 with SMTP id q17so5475820faa.36
	for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>;
	Sun, 06 Nov 2011 02:45:48 -0800 (PST)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <d08817$23njts@azsmga001.ch.intel.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/options/intel-gfx>,
	<mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx>
List-Post: <mailto:intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
List-Help: <mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx>,
	<mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org
Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org
To: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>, intel-gfx <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org

On Sun, Nov 06, 2011 at 08:39:46AM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Sun,  6 Nov 2011 01:41:35 +0100, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> wrote:
> > Use a combination of atomic_t and a spinlocked slow-path to make most
> > writes fast.
> 
> What happened to the rule that this was protected by struct_mutex?
> Did you find a violation? Or is this step 1 in the hundred step plan to
> clarify and fix the locking around register access?

The real problem is the read side, which isn't really protected by
struct_mutex everywhere. And we can't change that because we want to
capture the error_state without taking struct_mutex. Somehow I've gotten a
bit overenthusiastic about all this and decided to start with that 5 year
plan to clean up our locking around register access.

After some more thinking this morning I've noticed that my trick is
fundamentally racy. Before I embarass myself even more I'll drop this
patch and just resend the read side locking fix so that the hangcheck
won't kill my machine anymore.
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Mail: daniel@ffwll.ch
Mobile: +41 (0)79 365 57 48