From: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
To: "Dixit, Ashutosh" <ashutosh.dixit@intel.com>
Cc: intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [Intel-xe] [PATCH 2/3] drm/xe: Use spinlock in forcewake instead of mutex
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2023 16:56:57 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZO+tGbmexPz6sI30@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87cyz514dt.wl-ashutosh.dixit@intel.com>
On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 10:33:02PM -0700, Dixit, Ashutosh wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Aug 2023 22:15:43 -0700, Aravind Iddamsetty wrote:
> >
>
> Hi Aravind,
>
> > @@ -162,7 +162,7 @@ int xe_force_wake_get(struct xe_force_wake *fw,
> > domain->id, ret);
> > }
> > fw->awake_domains |= woken;
> > - mutex_unlock(&fw->lock);
> > + spin_unlock(&fw->lock);
>
> No need to change anything yet, but let's get some more opinion on this: is
> it ok to (a) just replace the mutex with a spinlock in these force_wake
> functions, or, (b) should we have a second set of functions to be called in
> atomic context, say: xe_force_wake_get/put_atomic? So we should use (b) in
> atomic contexts and everywhere else we just continue to use the previous
> set of non-atomic functions? Or just converting the default set of
> functions to use spin lock (as is done in this patch) is ok?
It looks okay to me,
Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
>
> Thanks.
> --
> Ashutosh
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-08-30 20:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-08-30 5:15 [Intel-xe] [PATCH v5 0/3] drm/xe/pmu: Enable PMU interface Aravind Iddamsetty
2023-08-30 5:10 ` [Intel-xe] ✓ CI.Patch_applied: success for drm/xe/pmu: Enable PMU interface (rev5) Patchwork
2023-08-30 5:10 ` [Intel-xe] ✗ CI.checkpatch: warning " Patchwork
2023-08-30 5:12 ` [Intel-xe] ✓ CI.KUnit: success " Patchwork
2023-08-30 5:15 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH v3 1/3] drm/xe: Get GT clock to nanosecs Aravind Iddamsetty
2023-08-30 5:15 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH 2/3] drm/xe: Use spinlock in forcewake instead of mutex Aravind Iddamsetty
2023-08-30 5:33 ` Dixit, Ashutosh
2023-08-30 20:56 ` Rodrigo Vivi [this message]
2023-08-30 22:19 ` Dixit, Ashutosh
2023-08-31 4:13 ` Aravind Iddamsetty
2023-08-30 5:15 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH v5 3/3] drm/xe/pmu: Enable PMU interface Aravind Iddamsetty
2023-08-30 20:58 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2023-08-31 20:45 ` Dixit, Ashutosh
2023-08-31 22:14 ` Aravind Iddamsetty
2023-08-31 4:48 ` Dixit, Ashutosh
2023-08-31 10:29 ` Aravind Iddamsetty
2023-08-31 16:58 ` Dixit, Ashutosh
2023-08-31 22:11 ` Aravind Iddamsetty
2023-08-31 22:21 ` Belgaumkar, Vinay
2023-08-31 23:11 ` Aravind Iddamsetty
2023-08-31 23:22 ` Belgaumkar, Vinay
2023-08-31 23:16 ` Dixit, Ashutosh
2023-08-31 23:57 ` Belgaumkar, Vinay
2023-08-31 23:58 ` Dixit, Ashutosh
2023-09-01 3:34 ` Aravind Iddamsetty
2023-08-30 5:19 ` [Intel-xe] ✓ CI.Build: success for drm/xe/pmu: Enable PMU interface (rev5) Patchwork
2023-08-30 5:19 ` [Intel-xe] ✗ CI.Hooks: failure " Patchwork
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2023-09-01 7:06 [Intel-xe] [PATCH v6 0/3] drm/xe/pmu: Enable PMU interface Aravind Iddamsetty
2023-09-01 7:06 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH 2/3] drm/xe: Use spinlock in forcewake instead of mutex Aravind Iddamsetty
2023-09-14 6:13 [Intel-xe] [PATCH v7 0/3] drm/xe/pmu: Enable PMU interface Aravind Iddamsetty
2023-09-14 6:13 ` [Intel-xe] [PATCH 2/3] drm/xe: Use spinlock in forcewake instead of mutex Aravind Iddamsetty
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=ZO+tGbmexPz6sI30@intel.com \
--to=rodrigo.vivi@intel.com \
--cc=ashutosh.dixit@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