From: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@linux.intel.com>
To: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: Pull intel_uncore_arm_unclaimed_mmio_detection() under the spinlock
Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2018 16:29:47 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87d0tt5r1w.fsf@gaia.fi.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180904131207.17563-1-chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> writes:
> Elsewhere we manipulate uncore.unclaimed_mmio_check and
> i915_param.mmio_debug under the irq lock (e.g. preserving the current
> value across a user forcewake grab), but do not protect the manipulation
> inside intel_uncore_arm_unclaimed_mmio_detection() from concurrent
> access, even from itself. This is an issue as we do call
> arm_unclaimed_mmio_detection from multiple threads without coordination.
>
> Suggested-by: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> Cc: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c | 13 ++++++++++---
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c
> index 05f0cda18501..3ad302c66254 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c
> @@ -2283,8 +2283,12 @@ bool intel_uncore_unclaimed_mmio(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> bool
> intel_uncore_arm_unclaimed_mmio_detection(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> {
> + bool ret = false;
> +
> + spin_lock_irq(&dev_priv->uncore.lock);
> +
> if (unlikely(dev_priv->uncore.unclaimed_mmio_check <= 0))
> - return false;
> + goto out;
>
> if (unlikely(intel_uncore_unclaimed_mmio(dev_priv))) {
> if (!i915_modparams.mmio_debug) {
> @@ -2294,10 +2298,13 @@ intel_uncore_arm_unclaimed_mmio_detection(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> i915_modparams.mmio_debug++;
> }
> dev_priv->uncore.unclaimed_mmio_check--;
> - return true;
> + ret = true;
> }
>
> - return false;
> +out:
> + spin_unlock_irq(&dev_priv->uncore.lock);
> +
> + return ret;
Patchbot didn't see how the future will unfold. I did.
Reviewed-by: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@linux.intelcom>
> }
>
> static enum forcewake_domains
> --
> 2.19.0.rc1
>
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-09-04 13:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-09-04 13:12 [PATCH] drm/i915: Pull intel_uncore_arm_unclaimed_mmio_detection() under the spinlock Chris Wilson
2018-09-04 13:13 ` ✗ Fi.CI.BAT: failure for " Patchwork
2018-09-04 13:29 ` Mika Kuoppala [this message]
2018-09-04 14:57 ` ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success " Patchwork
2018-09-04 20:22 ` ✓ Fi.CI.IGT: " Patchwork
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87d0tt5r1w.fsf@gaia.fi.intel.com \
--to=mika.kuoppala@linux.intel.com \
--cc=chris@chris-wilson.co.uk \
--cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox