From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ville =?iso-8859-1?Q?Syrj=E4l=E4?= <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] drm/i915: Fix forcewake counts for gen8
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 13:27:09 +0200
Message-ID: <20140224112709.GL3852@intel.com>
References: <1392996723-8886-1-git-send-email-mika.kuoppala@intel.com>
	<1392996723-8886-2-git-send-email-mika.kuoppala@intel.com>
	<20140221193847.GA7594@bwidawsk.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org>
Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20])
	by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AE7BFA9D3
	for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>;
	Mon, 24 Feb 2014 03:27:15 -0800 (PST)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20140221193847.GA7594@bwidawsk.net>
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@lists.freedesktop.org
Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org
To: Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net>
Cc: Ben Widawsky <benjamin.widawsky@intel.com>, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org, miku@iki.fi, mika.kuoppala@intel.com
List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org

On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 11:38:48AM -0800, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 05:31:59PM +0200, mika.kuoppala@intel.com wrote:
> > From: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@intel.com>
> > =

> > Sometimes generic driver code gets forcewake explicitly by
> > gen6_gt_force_wake_get(), which check forcewake_count before accessing
> > hardware. However the register access with gen8_write function access
> > low level hw accessors directly, ignoring the forcewake_count. This
> > leads to nested forcewake get from hardware, in ring init and possibly
> > elsewhere, causing forcewake ack clear errors and/or hangs.
> > =

> > Fix this by checking the forcewake count also in gen8_write
> > =

> > v2: Read side doesn't care about shadowed registers,
> >     Remove __needs_put funkiness from gen8_write. (Ville)
> >     Improved commit message.
> > =

> > References: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D74007
> > Cc: Ben Widawsky <benjamin.widawsky@intel.com>
> > Cc: Ville Syrj=E4l=E4 <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@intel.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Ben Widawsky <ben@bwidawsk.net>
> =

> For those concerned with the performance implication of the extra if
> (if anyone at all cares, it's Chris) - I suppose we could also just add
> the lock to gen6_gt_force_wake_get/put.

Two things:
a) I don't understand what you mean here. uncore.lock already protects
the forcewake count in gen6_gt_force_wake_get/put. Also there's no way
to avoid the branch here since doing a .force_wake_put() w/o checking
the forcewake count is never ok.

b) The cost of branch should be a drop in the ocean compared to the
cost of the register reads/writes in .forcewake_get/put.

-- =

Ville Syrj=E4l=E4
Intel OTC