Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm: avoid spurious EBUSY due to nonblocking atomic modesets

From: Marius Vlad <marius.vlad@collabora.com>
To: Daniel Stone <daniel@fooishbar.org>
Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>,
	Intel Graphics Development <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	DRI Development <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	stable@vger.kernel.org,
	Pekka Paalanen <pekka.paalanen@collabora.co.uk>,
	Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm: avoid spurious EBUSY due to nonblocking atomic modesets
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 16:36:36 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200922133636.GA2369@xpredator> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPj87rN48S8+pLd0ksOX4pdCTqtO=bDgjhkPxpWr_AnpVvgaSQ@mail.gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1944 bytes --]

On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 07:34:00AM +0000, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Jul 2018 at 11:21, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> wrote:
> > When doing an atomic modeset with ALLOW_MODESET drivers are allowed to
> > pull in arbitrary other resources, including CRTCs (e.g. when
> > reconfiguring global resources).
> >
> > But in nonblocking mode userspace has then no idea this happened,
> > which can lead to spurious EBUSY calls, both:
> > - when that other CRTC is currently busy doing a page_flip the
> >   ALLOW_MODESET commit can fail with an EBUSY
> > - on the other CRTC a normal atomic flip can fail with EBUSY because
> >   of the additional commit inserted by the kernel without userspace's
> >   knowledge
> >
> > For blocking commits this isn't a problem, because everyone else will
> > just block until all the CRTC are reconfigured. Only thing userspace
> > can notice is the dropped frames without any reason for why frames got
> > dropped.
> >
> > Consensus is that we need new uapi to handle this properly, but no one
> > has any idea what exactly the new uapi should look like. As a stop-gap
> > plug this problem by demoting nonblocking commits which might cause
> > issues by including CRTCs not in the original request to blocking
> > commits.
Gentle ping. I've tried out Linus's master tree and, and like Pekka,
I've noticed this isn't integrated/added.

Noticed this is fixing (also) DPMS when multiple outputs are in use.
Wondering if we can just use a _ONCE() variant instead of WARN_ON(). I'm seeing
the warning quite often.

> 
> Thanks for writing this up Daniel, and for reminding me about it some
> time later as well ...
> 
> Reviewed-by: Daniel Stone <daniels@collabora.com>
> 
> Cheers,
> Daniel
> _______________________________________________
> dri-devel mailing list
> dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 160 bytes --]

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