On 31/08/23 03:49, Dixit, Ashutosh wrote:

On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 13:56:57 -0700, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:

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>

Still thinking about this, maybe some time (not part of this series) we
should do a power measurement comparison between mutex and spinlock and see
if there's an appreciable difference (unless we already know?). But till we
do that, this is fine, so this is also:

Reviewed-by: Ashutosh Dixit <ashutosh.dixit@intel.com>

Thanks Rodrigo and Ashutosh for your r-b.

Regards,

Aravind.