* [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915/gt: Drop false assertion on user_forcewake
@ 2019-11-04 9:01 Chris Wilson
2019-11-04 9:01 ` [Intel-gfx] " Chris Wilson
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Chris Wilson @ 2019-11-04 9:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: intel-gfx
The counter is removed from the pm wakeref count, but it remains intact
so that we can restore it upon resume. Ergo inside suspend, it may have
a value.
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_pm.c | 1 -
1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_pm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_pm.c
index 6374744bb65e..060a27d9af34 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_pm.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_pm.c
@@ -251,7 +251,6 @@ static void wait_for_suspend(struct intel_gt *gt)
intel_gt_set_wedged(gt);
}
- GEM_BUG_ON(atomic_read(>->user_wakeref));
intel_gt_pm_wait_for_idle(gt);
}
--
2.24.0.rc2
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915/gt: Drop false assertion on user_forcewake
2019-11-04 9:01 [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915/gt: Drop false assertion on user_forcewake Chris Wilson
@ 2019-11-04 9:01 ` Chris Wilson
2019-11-04 9:01 ` [PATCH 2/2] drm/i915: Protect request peeking with RCU Chris Wilson
2019-11-04 9:38 ` [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915/gt: Drop false assertion on user_forcewake Mika Kuoppala
2 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Chris Wilson @ 2019-11-04 9:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: intel-gfx
The counter is removed from the pm wakeref count, but it remains intact
so that we can restore it upon resume. Ergo inside suspend, it may have
a value.
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_pm.c | 1 -
1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_pm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_pm.c
index 6374744bb65e..060a27d9af34 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_pm.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_pm.c
@@ -251,7 +251,6 @@ static void wait_for_suspend(struct intel_gt *gt)
intel_gt_set_wedged(gt);
}
- GEM_BUG_ON(atomic_read(>->user_wakeref));
intel_gt_pm_wait_for_idle(gt);
}
--
2.24.0.rc2
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 2/2] drm/i915: Protect request peeking with RCU
2019-11-04 9:01 [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915/gt: Drop false assertion on user_forcewake Chris Wilson
2019-11-04 9:01 ` [Intel-gfx] " Chris Wilson
@ 2019-11-04 9:01 ` Chris Wilson
2019-11-04 9:01 ` [Intel-gfx] " Chris Wilson
2019-11-04 9:59 ` Mika Kuoppala
2019-11-04 9:38 ` [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915/gt: Drop false assertion on user_forcewake Mika Kuoppala
2 siblings, 2 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Chris Wilson @ 2019-11-04 9:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: intel-gfx
Since the execlists_active() is no longer protected by the
engine->active.lock, we need to protect the request pointer with RCU to
prevent it being freed as we evaluate whether or not we need to preempt.
Fixes: df403069029d ("drm/i915/execlists: Lift process_csb() out of the irq-off spinlock")
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_scheduler.c | 9 +++++++--
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_scheduler.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_scheduler.c
index d2edb527dcb8..010d67f48ad9 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_scheduler.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_scheduler.c
@@ -202,21 +202,26 @@ static void kick_submission(struct intel_engine_cs *engine,
if (prio <= engine->execlists.queue_priority_hint)
return;
+ rcu_read_lock();
+
/* Nothing currently active? We're overdue for a submission! */
inflight = execlists_active(&engine->execlists);
if (!inflight)
- return;
+ goto unlock;
/*
* If we are already the currently executing context, don't
* bother evaluating if we should preempt ourselves.
*/
if (inflight->hw_context == rq->hw_context)
- return;
+ goto unlock;
engine->execlists.queue_priority_hint = prio;
if (need_preempt(prio, rq_prio(inflight)))
tasklet_hi_schedule(&engine->execlists.tasklet);
+
+unlock:
+ rcu_read_unlock();
}
static void __i915_schedule(struct i915_sched_node *node,
--
2.24.0.rc2
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/2] drm/i915: Protect request peeking with RCU
2019-11-04 9:01 ` [PATCH 2/2] drm/i915: Protect request peeking with RCU Chris Wilson
@ 2019-11-04 9:01 ` Chris Wilson
2019-11-04 9:59 ` Mika Kuoppala
1 sibling, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Chris Wilson @ 2019-11-04 9:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: intel-gfx
Since the execlists_active() is no longer protected by the
engine->active.lock, we need to protect the request pointer with RCU to
prevent it being freed as we evaluate whether or not we need to preempt.
Fixes: df403069029d ("drm/i915/execlists: Lift process_csb() out of the irq-off spinlock")
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_scheduler.c | 9 +++++++--
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_scheduler.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_scheduler.c
index d2edb527dcb8..010d67f48ad9 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_scheduler.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_scheduler.c
@@ -202,21 +202,26 @@ static void kick_submission(struct intel_engine_cs *engine,
if (prio <= engine->execlists.queue_priority_hint)
return;
+ rcu_read_lock();
+
/* Nothing currently active? We're overdue for a submission! */
inflight = execlists_active(&engine->execlists);
if (!inflight)
- return;
+ goto unlock;
/*
* If we are already the currently executing context, don't
* bother evaluating if we should preempt ourselves.
*/
if (inflight->hw_context == rq->hw_context)
- return;
+ goto unlock;
engine->execlists.queue_priority_hint = prio;
if (need_preempt(prio, rq_prio(inflight)))
tasklet_hi_schedule(&engine->execlists.tasklet);
+
+unlock:
+ rcu_read_unlock();
}
static void __i915_schedule(struct i915_sched_node *node,
--
2.24.0.rc2
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH 2/2] drm/i915: Protect request peeking with RCU
2019-11-04 9:01 ` [PATCH 2/2] drm/i915: Protect request peeking with RCU Chris Wilson
2019-11-04 9:01 ` [Intel-gfx] " Chris Wilson
@ 2019-11-04 9:59 ` Mika Kuoppala
2019-11-04 9:59 ` [Intel-gfx] " Mika Kuoppala
1 sibling, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Mika Kuoppala @ 2019-11-04 9:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chris Wilson, intel-gfx
Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> writes:
> Since the execlists_active() is no longer protected by the
> engine->active.lock, we need to protect the request pointer with RCU to
> prevent it being freed as we evaluate whether or not we need to preempt.
>
> Fixes: df403069029d ("drm/i915/execlists: Lift process_csb() out of the irq-off spinlock")
> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> Cc: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@linux.intel.com>
> Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@linux.intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_scheduler.c | 9 +++++++--
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_scheduler.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_scheduler.c
> index d2edb527dcb8..010d67f48ad9 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_scheduler.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_scheduler.c
> @@ -202,21 +202,26 @@ static void kick_submission(struct intel_engine_cs *engine,
> if (prio <= engine->execlists.queue_priority_hint)
> return;
>
> + rcu_read_lock();
> +
> /* Nothing currently active? We're overdue for a submission! */
> inflight = execlists_active(&engine->execlists);
> if (!inflight)
> - return;
> + goto unlock;
>
> /*
> * If we are already the currently executing context, don't
> * bother evaluating if we should preempt ourselves.
> */
> if (inflight->hw_context == rq->hw_context)
> - return;
> + goto unlock;
>
> engine->execlists.queue_priority_hint = prio;
> if (need_preempt(prio, rq_prio(inflight)))
> tasklet_hi_schedule(&engine->execlists.tasklet);
> +
> +unlock:
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> }
>
> static void __i915_schedule(struct i915_sched_node *node,
> --
> 2.24.0.rc2
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/2] drm/i915: Protect request peeking with RCU
2019-11-04 9:59 ` Mika Kuoppala
@ 2019-11-04 9:59 ` Mika Kuoppala
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Mika Kuoppala @ 2019-11-04 9:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chris Wilson, intel-gfx
Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> writes:
> Since the execlists_active() is no longer protected by the
> engine->active.lock, we need to protect the request pointer with RCU to
> prevent it being freed as we evaluate whether or not we need to preempt.
>
> Fixes: df403069029d ("drm/i915/execlists: Lift process_csb() out of the irq-off spinlock")
> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> Cc: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@linux.intel.com>
> Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@linux.intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_scheduler.c | 9 +++++++--
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_scheduler.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_scheduler.c
> index d2edb527dcb8..010d67f48ad9 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_scheduler.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_scheduler.c
> @@ -202,21 +202,26 @@ static void kick_submission(struct intel_engine_cs *engine,
> if (prio <= engine->execlists.queue_priority_hint)
> return;
>
> + rcu_read_lock();
> +
> /* Nothing currently active? We're overdue for a submission! */
> inflight = execlists_active(&engine->execlists);
> if (!inflight)
> - return;
> + goto unlock;
>
> /*
> * If we are already the currently executing context, don't
> * bother evaluating if we should preempt ourselves.
> */
> if (inflight->hw_context == rq->hw_context)
> - return;
> + goto unlock;
>
> engine->execlists.queue_priority_hint = prio;
> if (need_preempt(prio, rq_prio(inflight)))
> tasklet_hi_schedule(&engine->execlists.tasklet);
> +
> +unlock:
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> }
>
> static void __i915_schedule(struct i915_sched_node *node,
> --
> 2.24.0.rc2
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915/gt: Drop false assertion on user_forcewake
2019-11-04 9:01 [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915/gt: Drop false assertion on user_forcewake Chris Wilson
2019-11-04 9:01 ` [Intel-gfx] " Chris Wilson
2019-11-04 9:01 ` [PATCH 2/2] drm/i915: Protect request peeking with RCU Chris Wilson
@ 2019-11-04 9:38 ` Mika Kuoppala
2019-11-04 9:38 ` [Intel-gfx] " Mika Kuoppala
2 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Mika Kuoppala @ 2019-11-04 9:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chris Wilson, intel-gfx
Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> writes:
> The counter is removed from the pm wakeref count, but it remains intact
> so that we can restore it upon resume. Ergo inside suspend, it may have
> a value.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Reviewed-by: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@linux.intel.com>
oh, user_forcewake needs a better name with a verb...
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_pm.c | 1 -
> 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_pm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_pm.c
> index 6374744bb65e..060a27d9af34 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_pm.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_pm.c
> @@ -251,7 +251,6 @@ static void wait_for_suspend(struct intel_gt *gt)
> intel_gt_set_wedged(gt);
> }
>
> - GEM_BUG_ON(atomic_read(>->user_wakeref));
> intel_gt_pm_wait_for_idle(gt);
> }
>
> --
> 2.24.0.rc2
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915/gt: Drop false assertion on user_forcewake
2019-11-04 9:38 ` [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915/gt: Drop false assertion on user_forcewake Mika Kuoppala
@ 2019-11-04 9:38 ` Mika Kuoppala
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Mika Kuoppala @ 2019-11-04 9:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chris Wilson, intel-gfx
Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> writes:
> The counter is removed from the pm wakeref count, but it remains intact
> so that we can restore it upon resume. Ergo inside suspend, it may have
> a value.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Reviewed-by: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@linux.intel.com>
oh, user_forcewake needs a better name with a verb...
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_pm.c | 1 -
> 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_pm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_pm.c
> index 6374744bb65e..060a27d9af34 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_pm.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_pm.c
> @@ -251,7 +251,6 @@ static void wait_for_suspend(struct intel_gt *gt)
> intel_gt_set_wedged(gt);
> }
>
> - GEM_BUG_ON(atomic_read(>->user_wakeref));
> intel_gt_pm_wait_for_idle(gt);
> }
>
> --
> 2.24.0.rc2
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2019-11-04 10:00 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2019-11-04 9:01 [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915/gt: Drop false assertion on user_forcewake Chris Wilson
2019-11-04 9:01 ` [Intel-gfx] " Chris Wilson
2019-11-04 9:01 ` [PATCH 2/2] drm/i915: Protect request peeking with RCU Chris Wilson
2019-11-04 9:01 ` [Intel-gfx] " Chris Wilson
2019-11-04 9:59 ` Mika Kuoppala
2019-11-04 9:59 ` [Intel-gfx] " Mika Kuoppala
2019-11-04 9:38 ` [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915/gt: Drop false assertion on user_forcewake Mika Kuoppala
2019-11-04 9:38 ` [Intel-gfx] " Mika Kuoppala
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox