[PATCH v7 16/26] drm/i915/gt: Use spin_lock_irq() instead of local_irq_disable() + spin_lock()

Maarten Lankhorst
2026-03-10T11:57:50Z

From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>

execlists_dequeue() is invoked from a function which uses
local_irq_disable() to disable interrupts so the spin_lock() behaves
like spin_lock_irq().
This breaks PREEMPT_RT because local_irq_disable() + spin_lock() is not
the same as spin_lock_irq().

execlists_dequeue_irq() and execlists_dequeue() has each one caller
only. If intel_engine_cs::active::lock is acquired and released with the
_irq suffix then it behaves almost as if execlists_dequeue() would be
invoked with disabled interrupts. The difference is the last part of the
function which is then invoked with enabled interrupts.
I can't tell if this makes a difference. From looking at it, it might
work to move the last unlock at the end of the function as I didn't find
anything that would acquire the lock again.

Reported-by: Clark Williams <williams@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Reviewed-by: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Maarten Lankhorst <dev@lankhorst.se>
---
.../drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c | 17 +++++------------
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c
index 1359fc9cb88ef..e11db81dca9c5 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c
@@ -1300,7 +1300,7 @@ static void execlists_dequeue(struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
* and context switches) submission.
*/

- spin_lock(&sched_engine->lock);
+ spin_lock_irq(&sched_engine->lock);

/*
* If the queue is higher priority than the last
@@ -1400,7 +1400,7 @@ static void execlists_dequeue(struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
* Even if ELSP[1] is occupied and not worthy
* of timeslices, our queue might be.
*/
- spin_unlock(&sched_engine->lock);
+ spin_unlock_irq(&sched_engine->lock);
return;
}
}
@@ -1426,7 +1426,7 @@ static void execlists_dequeue(struct intel_engine_cs *engine)

if (last && !can_merge_rq(last, rq)) {
spin_unlock(&ve->base.sched_engine->lock);
- spin_unlock(&engine->sched_engine->lock);
+ spin_unlock_irq(&engine->sched_engine->lock);
return; /* leave this for another sibling */
}

@@ -1588,7 +1588,7 @@ static void execlists_dequeue(struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
*/
sched_engine->queue_priority_hint = queue_prio(sched_engine);
i915_sched_engine_reset_on_empty(sched_engine);
- spin_unlock(&sched_engine->lock);
+ spin_unlock_irq(&sched_engine->lock);

/*
* We can skip poking the HW if we ended up with exactly the same set
@@ -1614,13 +1614,6 @@ static void execlists_dequeue(struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
}
}

-static void execlists_dequeue_irq(struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
-{
- local_irq_disable(); /* Suspend interrupts across request submission */
- execlists_dequeue(engine);
- local_irq_enable(); /* flush irq_work (e.g. breadcrumb enabling) */
-}
-
static void clear_ports(struct i915_request **ports, int count)
{
memset_p((void **)ports, NULL, count);
@@ -2475,7 +2468,7 @@ static void execlists_submission_tasklet(struct tasklet_struct *t)
}

if (!engine->execlists.pending[0]) {
- execlists_dequeue_irq(engine);
+ execlists_dequeue(engine);
start_timeslice(engine);
}

--
2.51.0