From: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
To: Matthew Auld <matthew.auld@intel.com>
Cc: <intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 03/34] drm/xe: Fix display runtime_pm handling
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 13:05:09 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Zc0A1fSxFFtJ0uVk@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ae9804f0-8188-4cb4-b4e5-c50a1a5101d6@intel.com>
On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 09:11:37AM +0000, Matthew Auld wrote:
> On 26/01/2024 20:30, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> > i915's intel_runtime_pm_get_if_in_use actually calls the
> > pm_runtime_get_if_active() with ign_usage_count = false, but Xe
> > was erroneously calling it with true because of the mem_access cases.
>
> Good catch.
>
> > This can lead to unbalanced references.
>
> Is there an actual imbalance here though? Is it not just a case of being
> overzealous in keeping the device awake when it is not currently "in_use" vs
> "if_active"? If the api increments the usage count we will still decrement
> it later, regardless of active vs in-use, AFAICT.
Indeed.
s/This can lead to unbalanced references./This can lead to unnecessary
references getting hold here and device never getting into the runtime
suspended state./g
>
> >
> > Let's use directly the 'if_in_use' function provided by linux/pm_runtime.
> >
> > Also, already start this new function protected from the runtime
> > recursion, since runtime_pm will need to call for display functions
> > for a proper D3Cold flow.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
> > ---
> > .../gpu/drm/xe/compat-i915-headers/i915_drv.h | 2 +-
> > drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pm.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++
> > drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pm.h | 1 +
> > 3 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/compat-i915-headers/i915_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/compat-i915-headers/i915_drv.h
> > index 420eba0e4be0..ad5864d1dd74 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/compat-i915-headers/i915_drv.h
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/compat-i915-headers/i915_drv.h
> > @@ -177,7 +177,7 @@ static inline intel_wakeref_t intel_runtime_pm_get_if_in_use(struct xe_runtime_p
> > {
> > struct xe_device *xe = container_of(pm, struct xe_device, runtime_pm);
> > - return xe_pm_runtime_get_if_active(xe);
> > + return xe_pm_runtime_get_if_in_use(xe);
> > }
> > static inline void intel_runtime_pm_put_unchecked(struct xe_runtime_pm *pm)
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pm.c
> > index bd35fe9f6227..19f88cb7715b 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pm.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pm.c
> > @@ -417,6 +417,23 @@ int xe_pm_runtime_get_if_active(struct xe_device *xe)
> > return pm_runtime_get_if_active(xe->drm.dev, true);
> > }
> > +/**
> > + * xe_pm_runtime_get_if_in_use - Get a runtime_pm reference and resume if needed
> > + * @xe: xe device instance
> > + *
> > + * Returns: True if device is awake and the reference was taken, false otherwise.
> > + */
> > +bool xe_pm_runtime_get_if_in_use(struct xe_device *xe)
> > +{
> > + if (xe_pm_read_callback_task(xe) == current) {
> > + /* The device is awake, grab the ref and move on */
> > + pm_runtime_get_noresume(xe->drm.dev);
> > + return true;
> > + }
> > +
> > + return pm_runtime_get_if_in_use(xe->drm.dev) >= 0;
>
> This is doing atomic_inc_not_zero() underneath for the "in_use" case AFAICT.
> If the usage count is zero it doesn't increment it and returns 0. Does that
> not lead to an imbalance? Should this rather be > 0?
>
> > +}
> > +
> > /**
> > * xe_pm_assert_unbounded_bridge - Disable PM on unbounded pcie parent bridge
> > * @xe: xe device instance
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pm.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pm.h
> > index 64a97c6726a7..9d372cbf388b 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pm.h
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pm.h
> > @@ -28,6 +28,7 @@ int xe_pm_runtime_resume(struct xe_device *xe);
> > int xe_pm_runtime_get(struct xe_device *xe);
> > int xe_pm_runtime_put(struct xe_device *xe);
> > int xe_pm_runtime_get_if_active(struct xe_device *xe);
> > +bool xe_pm_runtime_get_if_in_use(struct xe_device *xe);
> > void xe_pm_assert_unbounded_bridge(struct xe_device *xe);
> > int xe_pm_set_vram_threshold(struct xe_device *xe, u32 threshold);
> > void xe_pm_d3cold_allowed_toggle(struct xe_device *xe);
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-02-14 18:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 77+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-01-26 20:30 [RFC 00/34] Kill mem_access v2 Rodrigo Vivi
2024-01-26 20:30 ` [RFC 01/34] Revert "drm/xe/uc: Store firmware binary in system-memory backed BO" Rodrigo Vivi
2024-01-26 20:30 ` [RFC 02/34] drm/xe: Document Xe PM component Rodrigo Vivi
2024-01-29 10:38 ` Francois Dugast
2024-01-26 20:30 ` [RFC 03/34] drm/xe: Fix display runtime_pm handling Rodrigo Vivi
2024-02-05 9:11 ` Matthew Auld
2024-02-14 18:05 ` Rodrigo Vivi [this message]
2024-02-15 9:30 ` Matthew Auld
2024-02-15 22:19 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2024-01-26 20:30 ` [RFC 04/34] drm/xe: Create a xe_pm_runtime_resume_and_get variant for display Rodrigo Vivi
2024-01-26 20:30 ` [RFC 05/34] drm/xe: Convert xe_pm_runtime_{get, put} to void and protect from recursion Rodrigo Vivi
2024-01-26 20:30 ` [RFC 06/34] drm/xe: Prepare display for D3Cold Rodrigo Vivi
2024-01-26 20:30 ` [RFC 07/34] drm/xe: Convert mem_access assertion towards the runtime_pm state Rodrigo Vivi
2024-02-05 9:55 ` Matthew Auld
2024-02-14 18:15 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2024-01-26 20:30 ` [RFC 08/34] drm/xe: Runtime PM wake on every IOCTL Rodrigo Vivi
2024-02-05 9:39 ` Matthew Auld
2024-01-26 20:30 ` [RFC 09/34] drm/xe: Convert kunit tests from mem_access to xe_pm_runtime Rodrigo Vivi
2024-02-05 9:57 ` Matthew Auld
2024-01-26 20:30 ` [RFC 10/34] drm/xe: Convert scheduler towards direct pm_runtime Rodrigo Vivi
2024-02-05 10:46 ` Matthew Auld
2024-01-26 20:30 ` [RFC 11/34] drm/xe: Runtime PM wake on every sysfs call Rodrigo Vivi
2024-02-05 10:55 ` Matthew Auld
2024-02-14 18:48 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2024-01-26 20:30 ` [RFC 12/34] drm/xe: Ensure device is awake before removing it Rodrigo Vivi
2024-02-05 11:05 ` Matthew Auld
2024-02-14 18:51 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2024-01-26 20:30 ` [RFC 13/34] drm/xe: Remove mem_access from guc_pc calls Rodrigo Vivi
2024-02-05 11:08 ` Matthew Auld
2024-01-26 20:30 ` [RFC 14/34] drm/xe: Runtime PM wake on every debugfs call Rodrigo Vivi
2024-02-05 11:10 ` Matthew Auld
2024-02-14 18:57 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2024-01-26 20:30 ` [RFC 15/34] drm/xe: Replace dma_buf mem_access per direct xe_pm_runtime calls Rodrigo Vivi
2024-02-05 11:15 ` Matthew Auld
2024-01-26 20:30 ` [RFC 16/34] drm/xe: Removing extra mem_access protection from runtime pm Rodrigo Vivi
2024-02-05 11:23 ` Matthew Auld
2024-01-26 20:30 ` [RFC 17/34] drm/xe: Convert hwmon from mem_access to xe_pm_runtime calls Rodrigo Vivi
2024-02-05 11:25 ` Matthew Auld
2024-01-26 20:30 ` [RFC 18/34] drm/xe: Move lockdep protection from mem_access to xe_pm_runtime Rodrigo Vivi
2024-02-05 11:31 ` Matthew Auld
2024-01-26 20:30 ` [RFC 19/34] drm/xe: Remove pm_runtime lockdep Rodrigo Vivi
2024-02-05 11:54 ` Matthew Auld
2024-02-15 22:47 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2024-02-20 17:48 ` Matthew Auld
2024-02-28 16:53 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2024-01-26 20:30 ` [RFC 20/34] drm/xe: Stop checking for power_lost on D3Cold Rodrigo Vivi
2024-01-26 20:30 ` [RFC 21/34] drm/xe: Convert GuC CT paths from mem_access to xe_pm_runtime Rodrigo Vivi
2024-02-05 12:23 ` Matthew Auld
2024-02-28 16:51 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2024-01-26 20:30 ` [RFC 22/34] drm/xe: Keep D0 for the entire duration of a LR VM Rodrigo Vivi
2024-01-26 20:30 ` [RFC 23/34] drm/xe: Ensure D0 on TLB invalidation Rodrigo Vivi
2024-02-05 12:41 ` Matthew Auld
2024-01-26 20:30 ` [RFC 24/34] drm/xe: Remove useless mem_access protection for query ioctls Rodrigo Vivi
2024-02-05 12:43 ` Matthew Auld
2024-01-26 20:30 ` [RFC 25/34] drm/xe: Convert gsc_work from mem_access to xe_pm_runtime Rodrigo Vivi
2024-02-05 13:11 ` Matthew Auld
2024-01-26 20:30 ` [RFC 26/34] drm/xe: VMs don't need the mem_access protection anymore Rodrigo Vivi
2024-02-05 13:29 ` Matthew Auld
2024-02-15 22:37 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2024-01-26 20:30 ` [RFC 27/34] drm/xe: Remove useless mem_access during probe Rodrigo Vivi
2024-02-05 13:18 ` Matthew Auld
2024-01-26 20:30 ` [RFC 28/34] drm/xe: Remove mem_access from suspend and resume functions Rodrigo Vivi
2024-02-05 13:30 ` Matthew Auld
2024-01-26 20:30 ` [RFC 29/34] drm/xe: Convert gt_reset from mem_access to xe_pm_runtime Rodrigo Vivi
2024-02-05 13:33 ` Matthew Auld
2024-01-26 20:30 ` [RFC 30/34] drm/xe: Remove useless mem_access on PAT dumps Rodrigo Vivi
2024-02-05 13:34 ` Matthew Auld
2024-01-26 20:30 ` [RFC 31/34] drm/xe: Remove inner mem_access protections Rodrigo Vivi
2024-01-26 20:30 ` [RFC 32/34] drm/xe: Kill xe_device_mem_access_{get*,put} Rodrigo Vivi
2024-01-26 20:30 ` [RFC 33/34] drm/xe: Remove unused runtime pm helper Rodrigo Vivi
2024-01-26 20:30 ` [RFC 34/34] drm/xe: Enable D3Cold on 'low' VRAM utilization Rodrigo Vivi
2024-01-29 12:12 ` Matthew Auld
2024-01-29 19:01 ` Vivi, Rodrigo
2024-01-30 15:01 ` Gupta, Anshuman
2024-01-26 20:39 ` ✓ CI.Patch_applied: success for Kill mem_access v2 Patchwork
2024-01-26 20:40 ` ✗ CI.checkpatch: warning " Patchwork
2024-01-26 20:40 ` ✗ CI.KUnit: 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=Zc0A1fSxFFtJ0uVk@intel.com \
--to=rodrigo.vivi@intel.com \
--cc=intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=matthew.auld@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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).