From: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
To: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@linux.intel.com>
Cc: intel-gfx <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
Nirmoy Das <nirmoy.das@intel.com>,
"Janusz Krzysztofik" <janusz.krzysztofik@linux.intel.com>,
Chris Wilson <chris.p.wilson@linux.intel.com>,
Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915/gt: debugfs: Evaluate forcewake usage within locks
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2024 11:16:24 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZmMkSHoUhfuK61fT@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240607145131.217251-1-andi.shyti@linux.intel.com>
On Fri, Jun 07, 2024 at 04:51:31PM +0200, Andi Shyti wrote:
> The forcewake count and domains listing is multi process critical
> and the uncore provides a spinlock for such cases.
>
> Lock the forcewake evaluation section in the fw_domains_show()
> debugfs interface.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@linux.intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_pm_debugfs.c | 4 ++++
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_pm_debugfs.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_pm_debugfs.c
> index 4fcba42cfe34..0437fd8217e0 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_pm_debugfs.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_pm_debugfs.c
> @@ -71,6 +71,8 @@ static int fw_domains_show(struct seq_file *m, void *data)
> struct intel_uncore_forcewake_domain *fw_domain;
> unsigned int tmp;
>
> + spin_lock_irq(&uncore->lock);
> +
> seq_printf(m, "user.bypass_count = %u\n",
> uncore->user_forcewake_count);
>
> @@ -79,6 +81,8 @@ static int fw_domains_show(struct seq_file *m, void *data)
> intel_uncore_forcewake_domain_to_str(fw_domain->id),
> READ_ONCE(fw_domain->wake_count));
>
> + spin_unlock_irq(&uncore->lock);
I was going to ask to move all of this to a function inside intel_uncore.c
so we keep the lock access in there.... But then I noticed it is already
spread all over :(
Well, perhaps we should start from here to set the precedence and move
things to its own component... but well, I won't block or make it hard,
we do need this change and the overall uncore cleanup could be orthogonal.
Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
> +
> return 0;
> }
> DEFINE_INTEL_GT_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE(fw_domains);
> --
> 2.45.1
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-06-07 15:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-06-07 14:51 [PATCH] drm/i915/gt: debugfs: Evaluate forcewake usage within locks Andi Shyti
2024-06-07 15:16 ` Rodrigo Vivi [this message]
2024-06-11 13:35 ` Andi Shyti
2024-06-07 17:17 ` ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success for " Patchwork
2024-06-08 4:46 ` ✗ Fi.CI.IGT: failure " Patchwork
2024-06-10 9:24 ` [PATCH] " Nirmoy Das
2024-06-11 13:58 ` Tvrtko Ursulin
2024-06-11 14:44 ` Nirmoy Das
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=ZmMkSHoUhfuK61fT@intel.com \
--to=rodrigo.vivi@intel.com \
--cc=andi.shyti@kernel.org \
--cc=andi.shyti@linux.intel.com \
--cc=chris.p.wilson@linux.intel.com \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=janusz.krzysztofik@linux.intel.com \
--cc=nirmoy.das@intel.com \
/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