From: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@intel.com>
To: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>
Cc: intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [Intel-xe] [PATCH] drm/xe: Use atomic instead of mutex for xe_device_mem_access_ongoing
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2023 23:40:37 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZBT6dVTadakDwcRi@DUT025-TGLU.fm.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230228101730.63294-1-maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>
On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 11:17:30AM +0100, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> xe_guc_ct_fast_path() is called from an irq context, and cannot lock
> the mutex used by xe_device_mem_access_ongoing().
>
> Fortunately it is easy to fix, and the atomic guarantees are good enough
> to ensure xe->mem_access.hold_rpm is set before last ref is dropped.
>
> As far as I can tell, the runtime ref in device access should be
> killable, but don't dare to do it yet.
>
> Signed-off-by: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>
I think this a better fix:
https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/115301/
Matt
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device.c | 17 ++++++++---------
> drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device.h | 14 ++++----------
> drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device_types.h | 4 +---
> 3 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device.c
> index 4eb6786b11f0..ab179b1e24c1 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device.c
> @@ -237,7 +237,6 @@ struct xe_device *xe_device_create(struct pci_dev *pdev,
> if (err)
> goto err;
>
> - mutex_init(&xe->mem_access.lock);
> return xe;
>
> err_put:
> @@ -424,25 +423,25 @@ u32 xe_device_ccs_bytes(struct xe_device *xe, u64 size)
> void xe_device_mem_access_get(struct xe_device *xe)
> {
> bool resumed = xe_pm_runtime_resume_if_suspended(xe);
> + int ref = atomic_inc_return(&xe->mem_access.ref);
>
> - mutex_lock(&xe->mem_access.lock);
> - if (xe->mem_access.ref++ == 0)
> + if (ref == 1)
> xe->mem_access.hold_rpm = xe_pm_runtime_get_if_active(xe);
> - mutex_unlock(&xe->mem_access.lock);
>
> /* The usage counter increased if device was immediately resumed */
> if (resumed)
> xe_pm_runtime_put(xe);
>
> - XE_WARN_ON(xe->mem_access.ref == S32_MAX);
> + XE_WARN_ON(ref == S32_MAX);
> }
>
> void xe_device_mem_access_put(struct xe_device *xe)
> {
> - mutex_lock(&xe->mem_access.lock);
> - if (--xe->mem_access.ref == 0 && xe->mem_access.hold_rpm)
> + bool hold = xe->mem_access.hold_rpm;
> + int ref = atomic_dec_return(&xe->mem_access.ref);
> +
> + if (!ref && hold)
> xe_pm_runtime_put(xe);
> - mutex_unlock(&xe->mem_access.lock);
>
> - XE_WARN_ON(xe->mem_access.ref < 0);
> + XE_WARN_ON(ref < 0);
> }
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device.h
> index 263620953c3b..96b4f3d7969e 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device.h
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device.h
> @@ -90,20 +90,14 @@ static inline struct xe_force_wake * gt_to_fw(struct xe_gt *gt)
> void xe_device_mem_access_get(struct xe_device *xe);
> void xe_device_mem_access_put(struct xe_device *xe);
>
> -static inline void xe_device_assert_mem_access(struct xe_device *xe)
> +static inline bool xe_device_mem_access_ongoing(struct xe_device *xe)
> {
> - XE_WARN_ON(!xe->mem_access.ref);
> + return atomic_read(&xe->mem_access.ref);
> }
>
> -static inline bool xe_device_mem_access_ongoing(struct xe_device *xe)
> +static inline void xe_device_assert_mem_access(struct xe_device *xe)
> {
> - bool ret;
> -
> - mutex_lock(&xe->mem_access.lock);
> - ret = xe->mem_access.ref;
> - mutex_unlock(&xe->mem_access.lock);
> -
> - return ret;
> + XE_WARN_ON(!xe_device_mem_access_ongoing(xe));
> }
>
> static inline bool xe_device_in_fault_mode(struct xe_device *xe)
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device_types.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device_types.h
> index 9743987fc883..0b8c4ee0ad48 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device_types.h
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_device_types.h
> @@ -230,10 +230,8 @@ struct xe_device {
> * triggering additional actions when they occur.
> */
> struct {
> - /** @lock: protect the ref count */
> - struct mutex lock;
> /** @ref: ref count of memory accesses */
> - s32 ref;
> + atomic_t ref;
> /** @hold_rpm: need to put rpm ref back at the end */
> bool hold_rpm;
> } mem_access;
> --
> 2.34.1
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-03-17 23:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-02-28 10:17 [Intel-xe] [PATCH] drm/xe: Use atomic instead of mutex for xe_device_mem_access_ongoing Maarten Lankhorst
2023-03-01 16:36 ` Lucas De Marchi
2023-03-01 23:14 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2023-03-02 11:26 ` Maarten Lankhorst
2023-03-02 22:33 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2023-03-10 21:05 ` Lucas De Marchi
2023-03-17 23:40 ` Matthew Brost [this message]
2023-03-21 14:39 ` Matthew Brost
2023-03-21 21:16 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2023-03-22 12:44 ` Maarten Lankhorst
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=ZBT6dVTadakDwcRi@DUT025-TGLU.fm.intel.com \
--to=matthew.brost@intel.com \
--cc=intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=maarten.lankhorst@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