Intel-XE Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com>
To: Suraj Kandpal <suraj.kandpal@intel.com>
Cc: intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org, uma.shankar@intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/xe/pm: Move xe_rpm_lockmap_acquire
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2024 14:34:54 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZuGAXqmtrLOnjAGs@ideak-desk.fi.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240911093026.643605-1-suraj.kandpal@intel.com>

On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 03:00:25PM +0530, Suraj Kandpal wrote:
> Move xe_rpm_lockmap_acquire after display_pm_suspend and resume
> funtions to avoid cirular locking dependency because of locks
> being taken in intel_fbdev, intel_dp_mst_mgr suspend and resume
> functions.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Suraj Kandpal <suraj.kandpal@intel.com>

The actual problem is that MST is being suspended during runtime
suspend. This is not required (adding only unnecessary overhead) but
also incorrect as it involves AUX transfers which itself depends on the
device being runtime resumed. This is what lockdep is also trying to
say.

So the solution would be not to suspend/resume MST during runtime
suspend/resume.

> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pm.c | 28 ++++++++++++++--------------
>  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pm.c
> index a3d1509066f7..7f33e553728a 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pm.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_pm.c
> @@ -363,6 +363,18 @@ int xe_pm_runtime_suspend(struct xe_device *xe)
>  	/* Disable access_ongoing asserts and prevent recursive pm calls */
>  	xe_pm_write_callback_task(xe, current);
>  
> +	/*
> +	 * Applying lock for entire list op as xe_ttm_bo_destroy and xe_bo_move_notify
> +	 * also checks and delets bo entry from user fault list.
> +	 */
> +	mutex_lock(&xe->mem_access.vram_userfault.lock);
> +	list_for_each_entry_safe(bo, on,
> +				 &xe->mem_access.vram_userfault.list, vram_userfault_link)
> +		xe_bo_runtime_pm_release_mmap_offset(bo);
> +	mutex_unlock(&xe->mem_access.vram_userfault.lock);
> +
> +	xe_display_pm_runtime_suspend(xe);
> +
>  	/*
>  	 * The actual xe_pm_runtime_put() is always async underneath, so
>  	 * exactly where that is called should makes no difference to us. However
> @@ -386,18 +398,6 @@ int xe_pm_runtime_suspend(struct xe_device *xe)
>  	 */
>  	xe_rpm_lockmap_acquire(xe);
>  
> -	/*
> -	 * Applying lock for entire list op as xe_ttm_bo_destroy and xe_bo_move_notify
> -	 * also checks and delets bo entry from user fault list.
> -	 */
> -	mutex_lock(&xe->mem_access.vram_userfault.lock);
> -	list_for_each_entry_safe(bo, on,
> -				 &xe->mem_access.vram_userfault.list, vram_userfault_link)
> -		xe_bo_runtime_pm_release_mmap_offset(bo);
> -	mutex_unlock(&xe->mem_access.vram_userfault.lock);
> -
> -	xe_display_pm_runtime_suspend(xe);
> -
>  	if (xe->d3cold.allowed) {
>  		err = xe_bo_evict_all(xe);
>  		if (err)
> @@ -438,8 +438,6 @@ int xe_pm_runtime_resume(struct xe_device *xe)
>  	/* Disable access_ongoing asserts and prevent recursive pm calls */
>  	xe_pm_write_callback_task(xe, current);
>  
> -	xe_rpm_lockmap_acquire(xe);
> -
>  	if (xe->d3cold.allowed) {
>  		err = xe_pcode_ready(xe, true);
>  		if (err)
> @@ -463,6 +461,8 @@ int xe_pm_runtime_resume(struct xe_device *xe)
>  
>  	xe_display_pm_runtime_resume(xe);
>  
> +	xe_rpm_lockmap_acquire(xe);
> +
>  	if (xe->d3cold.allowed) {
>  		err = xe_bo_restore_user(xe);
>  		if (err)
> -- 
> 2.43.2
> 

  parent reply	other threads:[~2024-09-11 11:34 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-09-11  9:30 [PATCH] drm/xe/pm: Move xe_rpm_lockmap_acquire Suraj Kandpal
2024-09-11 10:41 ` Matthew Auld
2024-09-11 10:58   ` Kandpal, Suraj
2024-09-11 11:05 ` ✓ CI.Patch_applied: success for " Patchwork
2024-09-11 11:05 ` ✗ CI.checkpatch: warning " Patchwork
2024-09-11 11:06 ` ✓ CI.KUnit: success " Patchwork
2024-09-11 11:18 ` ✓ CI.Build: " Patchwork
2024-09-11 11:21 ` ✓ CI.Hooks: " Patchwork
2024-09-11 11:22 ` ✓ CI.checksparse: " Patchwork
2024-09-11 11:34 ` Imre Deak [this message]
2024-09-11 12:01   ` [PATCH] " Kandpal, Suraj
2024-09-11 12:05     ` Imre Deak
2024-09-11 12:20       ` Kandpal, Suraj
2024-09-11 11:39 ` ✗ CI.BAT: failure for " Patchwork
2024-09-11 13:12 ` ✗ CI.FULL: " 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=ZuGAXqmtrLOnjAGs@ideak-desk.fi.intel.com \
    --to=imre.deak@intel.com \
    --cc=intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=suraj.kandpal@intel.com \
    --cc=uma.shankar@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