Intel-XE Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Gustavo Sousa <gustavo.sousa@intel.com>
To: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>,
	<intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	<intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] drm/i915/dmc_wl: Enable the debugfs only with enable_dmc_wl_debugfs=1
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2025 10:50:44 -0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <173798584484.2736.7123406376932064160@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87r04o9y6a.fsf@intel.com>

Quoting Jani Nikula (2025-01-27 10:35:57-03:00)
>On Mon, 27 Jan 2025, Gustavo Sousa <gustavo.sousa@intel.com> wrote:
>> Quoting Jani Nikula (2025-01-27 09:01:39-03:00)
>>>On Fri, 17 Jan 2025, Gustavo Sousa <gustavo.sousa@intel.com> wrote:
>>>> We use a spinlock to protect DMC wakelock debugfs data, since it is also
>>>> accessed by the core DMC wakelock logic. Taking the spinlock when the
>>>> debugfs is not in use introduces a small but unnecessary penalty.
>>>>
>>>> Since the debugfs functionality is only expected to be used for, uh,
>>>> debugging sessions, let's protect it behind a module parameter
>>>> enable_dmc_wl_debugfs. That way, we only take the lock if the feature
>>>> was enabled in the first place.
>>>
>>>If the debug struct were an opaque pointer, you could check for that
>>>being != NULL. Register the debugfs always, and have that initialize
>>>everything as needed?
>>
>> Hm... I'm failing to see how this would keep us from having to take the
>> spinlock once we have the pointer being non-NULL.
>>
>> The idea of the parameter is to protect us from taking the spinlock when
>> we are not debugging DMC wakelock offsets.
>
>If you only allocate and assign the pointer when you enable the feature
>via debugfs, wouldn't that achieve the goal?

But then how are we going to protect ourselves from races when checking
the pointer for NULL-ness?

Maybe I'm missing some technical background here...

Is there a way to atomically do that without a lock?

Could RCU (which I still need to learn) help somehow here?

--
Gustavo Sousa

>
>BR,
>Jani.
>
>>
>> --
>> Gustavo Sousa
>>
>>>
>>>BR,
>>>Jani.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Gustavo Sousa <gustavo.sousa@intel.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  .../gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_params.c  |  5 +++++
>>>>  .../gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_params.h  |  1 +
>>>>  .../gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dmc_wl_debugfs.c  | 16 +++++++++++++++-
>>>>  3 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_params.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_params.c
>>>> index c4f1ab43fc0c..bc36d1b0ef87 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_params.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_params.c
>>>> @@ -133,6 +133,11 @@ intel_display_param_named_unsafe(enable_dmc_wl, int, 0400,
>>>>          "(-1=use per-chip default, 0=disabled, 1=enabled, 2=match any register, 3=always locked) "
>>>>          "Default: -1");
>>>>  
>>>> +intel_display_param_named_unsafe(enable_dmc_wl_debugfs, bool, 0400,
>>>> +        "Enable DMC wakelock debugfs"
>>>> +        "(0=disabled, 1=enabled) "
>>>> +        "Default: 0");
>>>> +
>>>>  __maybe_unused
>>>>  static void _param_print_bool(struct drm_printer *p, const char *driver_name,
>>>>                                const char *name, bool val)
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_params.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_params.h
>>>> index 5317138e6044..cb7dc1bc6846 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_params.h
>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_params.h
>>>> @@ -48,6 +48,7 @@ struct drm_printer;
>>>>          param(bool, psr_safest_params, false, 0400) \
>>>>          param(bool, enable_psr2_sel_fetch, true, 0400) \
>>>>          param(int, enable_dmc_wl, -1, 0400) \
>>>> +        param(bool, enable_dmc_wl_debugfs, false, 0400) \
>>>>  
>>>>  #define MEMBER(T, member, ...) T member;
>>>>  struct intel_display_params {
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dmc_wl_debugfs.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dmc_wl_debugfs.c
>>>> index 1493d296ac98..f4e4c7a5a730 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dmc_wl_debugfs.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_dmc_wl_debugfs.c
>>>> @@ -37,6 +37,9 @@
>>>>   * which exports a buffer of untracked register offsets and also allows extra
>>>>   * register offsets to be tracked by the driver.
>>>>   *
>>>> + * The debugfs directory is only exported if the module parameter
>>>> + * enable_dmc_wl_debugfs=1 is passed.
>>>> + *
>>>>   * Untracked offsets
>>>>   * -----------------
>>>>   *
>>>> @@ -411,6 +414,9 @@ void intel_dmc_wl_debugfs_register(struct intel_display *display)
>>>>  {
>>>>          struct dentry *dir;
>>>>  
>>>> +        if (!display->params.enable_dmc_wl_debugfs)
>>>> +                return;
>>>> +
>>>>          if (!HAS_DMC_WAKELOCK(display))
>>>>                  return;
>>>>  
>>>> @@ -453,6 +459,9 @@ void intel_dmc_wl_debugfs_log_untracked(struct intel_display *display, u32 offse
>>>>          struct intel_dmc_wl_dbg *dbg = &display->wl.dbg;
>>>>          unsigned long flags;
>>>>  
>>>> +        if (!display->params.enable_dmc_wl_debugfs)
>>>> +                return;
>>>> +
>>>>          spin_lock_irqsave(&dbg->lock, flags);
>>>>  
>>>>          if (!dbg->untracked.size)
>>>> @@ -479,9 +488,14 @@ void intel_dmc_wl_debugfs_log_untracked(struct intel_display *display, u32 offse
>>>>  bool intel_dmc_wl_debugfs_offset_in_extra_ranges(struct intel_display *display, u32 offset)
>>>>  {
>>>>          struct intel_dmc_wl_dbg *dbg = &display->wl.dbg;
>>>> -        bool ret = false;
>>>> +        bool ret;
>>>>          unsigned long flags;
>>>>  
>>>> +        if (!display->params.enable_dmc_wl_debugfs)
>>>> +                return false;
>>>> +
>>>> +        ret = false;
>>>> +
>>>>          spin_lock_irqsave(&dbg->lock, flags);
>>>>  
>>>>          if (!dbg->extra_ranges)
>>>
>>>-- 
>>>Jani Nikula, Intel
>
>-- 
>Jani Nikula, Intel

  reply	other threads:[~2025-01-27 13:52 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-01-17 22:06 [PATCH 0/4] drm/i915/dmc_wl: Introduce debugfs interface Gustavo Sousa
2025-01-17 22:06 ` [PATCH 1/4] drm/i915/dmc_wl: Pass offset instead of reg to range table iterator Gustavo Sousa
2025-01-22  8:23   ` Luca Coelho
2025-01-17 22:06 ` [PATCH 2/4] drm/i915/dmc_wl: Add debugfs for untracked offsets Gustavo Sousa
2025-01-22  9:06   ` Luca Coelho
2025-01-23 14:41     ` Gustavo Sousa
2025-01-30  9:33       ` Luca Coelho
2025-01-23 16:11   ` Vivekanandan, Balasubramani
2025-01-23 16:41     ` Gustavo Sousa
2025-01-30  8:54       ` Vivekanandan, Balasubramani
2025-01-27  9:47   ` Jani Nikula
2025-01-27 11:17     ` Gustavo Sousa
2025-01-27 11:59       ` Jani Nikula
2025-01-27 12:55         ` Gustavo Sousa
2025-01-17 22:06 ` [PATCH 3/4] drm/i915/dmc_wl: Add extra_ranges debugfs Gustavo Sousa
2025-01-22 10:19   ` Luca Coelho
2025-01-23 15:52     ` Gustavo Sousa
2025-01-30  9:18       ` Luca Coelho
2025-01-30  8:30   ` Vivekanandan, Balasubramani
2025-01-30  8:49     ` Vivekanandan, Balasubramani
2025-01-17 22:06 ` [PATCH 4/4] drm/i915/dmc_wl: Enable the debugfs only with enable_dmc_wl_debugfs=1 Gustavo Sousa
2025-01-22 10:24   ` Luca Coelho
2025-01-23 16:10     ` Gustavo Sousa
2025-01-30  9:28       ` Luca Coelho
2025-01-27 12:01   ` Jani Nikula
2025-01-27 12:02     ` Jani Nikula
2025-01-27 13:24     ` Gustavo Sousa
2025-01-27 13:35       ` Jani Nikula
2025-01-27 13:50         ` Gustavo Sousa [this message]
2025-01-27 14:40           ` Jani Nikula
2025-01-30  8:46   ` Vivekanandan, Balasubramani
2025-01-17 22:14 ` ✓ CI.Patch_applied: success for drm/i915/dmc_wl: Introduce debugfs interface Patchwork
2025-01-17 22:15 ` ✗ CI.checkpatch: warning " Patchwork
2025-01-17 22:16 ` ✓ CI.KUnit: success " Patchwork
2025-01-17 22:34 ` ✓ CI.Build: " Patchwork
2025-01-17 22:36 ` ✓ CI.Hooks: " Patchwork
2025-01-17 22:38 ` ✓ CI.checksparse: " Patchwork
2025-01-17 23:06 ` ✓ Xe.CI.BAT: " Patchwork
2025-01-18 13:06 ` ✗ Xe.CI.Full: failure " 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=173798584484.2736.7123406376932064160@intel.com \
    --to=gustavo.sousa@intel.com \
    --cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=jani.nikula@linux.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