From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/11] drm/i915: Clarify event_lock locking,
 irq&mixed context
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 14:20:12 +0200
Message-ID: <20140929122012.GE4109@phenom.ffwll.local>
References: <1410785732-18553-1-git-send-email-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
 <1410785732-18553-3-git-send-email-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
 <5428FA2B.8030005@intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org>
Received: from mail-we0-f174.google.com (mail-we0-f174.google.com
 [74.125.82.174])
 by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC8FB89E7C
 for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 05:20:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-we0-f174.google.com with SMTP id w62so12439735wes.33
 for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>; Mon, 29 Sep 2014 05:20:14 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5428FA2B.8030005@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>
Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org
Sender: "Intel-gfx" <intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org>
To: Jike Song <jike.song@intel.com>
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org

On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 02:20:27PM +0800, Jike Song wrote:
> On 09/15/2014 08:55 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> >Now we tackle the functions also called from interrupt handlers.
> >
> >- intel_check_page_flip is exclusively called from irq handlers, so a
> >   plain spin_lock is all we need. In i915_irq.c we have the convention
> >   to give all such functions an _irq_handler postfix, but that would
> >   look strange and als be a bit a misleading name. I've opted for a
> >   WARN_ON(!in_irq()) instead.
> 
> Hi Daniel,
> 
>  Is it possible to use in_interrupt() instead? Sorry to tell that, in
> our iGVT-g implementation, the host i915 irq handler needs to be called
> in a non hardirq driven context. i.e. a tasklet or workqueue.

Hm, why that? Depending upon how you do this you might break a lot of the
interrupt related locking we have ... This is a crucial integration issue,
which patch does that change?
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch