From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jike Song Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/11] drm/i915: Clarify event_lock locking, irq&mixed context Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 14:20:27 +0800 Message-ID: <5428FA2B.8030005@intel.com> References: <1410785732-18553-1-git-send-email-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> <1410785732-18553-3-git-send-email-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 466696E06B for ; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 23:24:49 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1410785732-18553-3-git-send-email-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Sender: "Intel-gfx" To: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org 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. Will send you the RFC patches soon. Just saw a warning after rebased upon new drm-intel-nightly. -- Thanks, Jike