From: Matthew Auld <matthew.auld@intel.com>
To: intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: [Intel-xe] [PATCH v4 2/7] drm/xe/ct: hold fast_lock when reserving space for g2h
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2023 17:06:05 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230705160602.237213-11-matthew.auld@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230705160602.237213-9-matthew.auld@intel.com>
Reserving and checking for space on the g2h side relies on the
fast_lock, and not the CT lock since we need to release space from the
fast CT path. Make sure we hold it when checking for space and reserving
it. The main concern is calling __g2h_release_space() as we are reserving
something and since the info.space and info.g2h_outstanding operations
are not atomic we can get some nonsense values back.
Signed-off-by: Matthew Auld <matthew.auld@intel.com>
Cc: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@intel.com>
Cc: José Roberto de Souza <jose.souza@intel.com>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_guc_ct.c | 22 +++++++++++++++-------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_guc_ct.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_guc_ct.c
index b7aecc480098..f8c1a2ca89f7 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_guc_ct.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_guc_ct.c
@@ -346,7 +346,10 @@ static bool h2g_has_room(struct xe_guc_ct *ct, u32 cmd_len)
static bool g2h_has_room(struct xe_guc_ct *ct, u32 g2h_len)
{
- lockdep_assert_held(&ct->lock);
+ if (!g2h_len)
+ return true;
+
+ lockdep_assert_held(&ct->fast_lock);
return ct->ctbs.g2h.info.space > g2h_len;
}
@@ -367,15 +370,15 @@ static void h2g_reserve_space(struct xe_guc_ct *ct, u32 cmd_len)
ct->ctbs.h2g.info.space -= cmd_len;
}
-static void g2h_reserve_space(struct xe_guc_ct *ct, u32 g2h_len, u32 num_g2h)
+static void __g2h_reserve_space(struct xe_guc_ct *ct, u32 g2h_len, u32 num_g2h)
{
XE_BUG_ON(g2h_len > ct->ctbs.g2h.info.space);
if (g2h_len) {
- spin_lock_irq(&ct->fast_lock);
+ lockdep_assert_held(&ct->fast_lock);
+
ct->ctbs.g2h.info.space -= g2h_len;
ct->g2h_outstanding += num_g2h;
- spin_unlock_irq(&ct->fast_lock);
}
}
@@ -499,21 +502,26 @@ static int __guc_ct_send_locked(struct xe_guc_ct *ct, const u32 *action,
}
}
+ if (g2h_len)
+ spin_lock_irq(&ct->fast_lock);
retry:
ret = has_room(ct, len + GUC_CTB_HDR_LEN, g2h_len);
if (unlikely(ret))
- goto out;
+ goto out_unlock;
ret = h2g_write(ct, action, len, g2h_fence ? g2h_fence->seqno : 0,
!!g2h_fence);
if (unlikely(ret)) {
if (ret == -EAGAIN)
goto retry;
- goto out;
+ goto out_unlock;
}
- g2h_reserve_space(ct, g2h_len, num_g2h);
+ __g2h_reserve_space(ct, g2h_len, num_g2h);
xe_guc_notify(ct_to_guc(ct));
+out_unlock:
+ if (g2h_len)
+ spin_unlock_irq(&ct->fast_lock);
out:
return ret;
}
--
2.41.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-07-05 16:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-07-05 16:06 [Intel-xe] [PATCH v4 0/7] Try to handle TLB invalidations from CT fast-path Matthew Auld
2023-07-05 16:06 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH v4 1/7] drm/xe: hold mem_access.ref for " Matthew Auld
2023-07-06 3:51 ` Matthew Brost
2023-07-06 8:29 ` Matthew Auld
2023-07-06 14:50 ` Matthew Brost
2023-07-05 16:06 ` Matthew Auld [this message]
2023-07-06 3:43 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH v4 2/7] drm/xe/ct: hold fast_lock when reserving space for g2h Matthew Brost
2023-07-05 16:06 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH v4 3/7] drm/xe/tlb: increment next seqno after successful CT send Matthew Auld
2023-07-06 3:59 ` Matthew Brost
2023-07-06 9:42 ` Matthew Auld
2023-07-06 15:15 ` Matthew Brost
2023-07-06 15:22 ` Matthew Auld
2023-07-05 16:06 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH v4 4/7] drm/xe/ct: serialise fast_lock during CT disable Matthew Auld
2023-07-06 4:00 ` Matthew Brost
2023-07-05 16:06 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH v4 5/7] drm/xe/gt: tweak placement for signalling TLB fences after GT reset Matthew Auld
2023-07-06 4:01 ` Matthew Brost
2023-07-05 16:06 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH v4 6/7] drm/xe/tlb: also update seqno_recv during reset Matthew Auld
2023-07-06 4:05 ` Matthew Brost
2023-07-06 10:02 ` Matthew Auld
2023-07-05 16:06 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH v4 7/7] drm/xe: handle TLB invalidations from CT fast-path Matthew Auld
2023-07-06 4:14 ` Matthew Brost
2023-07-05 16:10 ` [Intel-xe] ✓ CI.Patch_applied: success for Try to handle TLB invalidations from CT fast-path (rev2) Patchwork
2023-07-05 16:11 ` [Intel-xe] ✗ CI.checkpatch: warning " Patchwork
2023-07-05 16:12 ` [Intel-xe] ✓ CI.KUnit: success " Patchwork
2023-07-05 16:16 ` [Intel-xe] ✓ CI.Build: " Patchwork
2023-07-05 16:16 ` [Intel-xe] ✓ CI.Hooks: " Patchwork
2023-07-05 16:17 ` [Intel-xe] ✓ CI.checksparse: " Patchwork
2023-07-05 17:02 ` [Intel-xe] ○ CI.BAT: info " Patchwork
2023-07-06 15:23 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH v4 0/7] Try to handle TLB invalidations from CT fast-path Souza, Jose
2023-07-06 15:48 ` Matthew Auld
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=20230705160602.237213-11-matthew.auld@intel.com \
--to=matthew.auld@intel.com \
--cc=intel-xe@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