Intel-XE Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Raag Jadav" <raag.jadav@intel.com>, intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 8/9] drm/xe: Introduce xe_wedge
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2026 07:34:46 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <sashiko-outbox-173935@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20261016072623.457392-9-raag.jadav@intel.com>

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Low] drm/xe: missing lock in xe_wedge_set_mode() allows inconsistent state
--

commit 099845d336cfe3f2b49209afcef197ab88c425f6
Author: Raag Jadav <raag.jadav@intel.com>
Subject: drm/xe: Introduce xe_wedge

Consolidate wedging implementation into a dedicated xe_wedge component for
better maintainability. While at it, rename all wedge helpers to match with
component name.

> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_wedge.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_wedge.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000000000..2f35937c5e661
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/xe_wedge.c

[ ... ]

> +int xe_wedge_set_mode(struct xe_device *xe, enum xe_wedged_mode mode)
> +{
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	ret = wedge_validate_mode(xe, mode);
> +	if (ret)
> +		return ret;
> +
> +	if (wedge_mode_needs_policy_update(xe, mode)) {
> +		ret = wedge_mode_set_reset_policy(xe, mode);
> +		if (ret)
> +			return ret;
> +	}
> +
> +	xe->wedged.mode = mode;

[Severity: Low]
Can this sequence of updates lead to an inconsistent state if multiple threads
write to the wedged_mode debugfs node concurrently?

It looks like the multi-step update of the hardware reset policy and the
software mode tracking is not serialized by any lock in xe_wedge_set_mode().

If Thread A and Thread B concurrently write to the debugfs file:

Thread A checks wedge_mode_needs_policy_update() and proceeds to apply
the hardware settings.

Thread B checks and applies different settings.

Thread B writes its software state to xe->wedged.mode.

Thread A writes its software state to xe->wedged.mode.

Could the hardware reset policy become desynchronized from the software
state, potentially leading to lost hang recoveries or incorrect behavior?

> +
> +	return ret;
> +}

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20261016072623.457392-1-raag.jadav@intel.com?part=8

  reply	other threads:[~2026-10-16  7:34 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-10-16  7:25 [PATCH v10 0/9] Introduce xe_wedge Raag Jadav
2026-10-16  7:25 ` [PATCH v10 1/9] drm/xe/gt: Use GT ordered workqueue for wedging Raag Jadav
2026-10-16  7:50   ` sashiko-bot
2026-10-16  7:25 ` [PATCH v10 2/9] drm/xe: Drop xe_device_set_wedged_method() Raag Jadav
2026-10-16  7:25 ` [PATCH v10 3/9] drm/xe/hw_error: Guard csc_hw_error_work() with runtime PM Raag Jadav
2026-10-16  7:43   ` sashiko-bot
2026-10-16  7:25 ` [PATCH v10 4/9] drm/xe: Move xe_device_wedged_fini() registration to xe_device_probe_early() Raag Jadav
2026-10-16  7:25 ` [PATCH v10 5/9] drm/xe: Make xe_device_declare_wedged() IRQ safe Raag Jadav
2026-10-16  7:26 ` [PATCH v10 6/9] drm/xe/pci_error: Flush GT wedge worker before bus reset Raag Jadav
2026-10-16  7:44   ` sashiko-bot
2026-10-16  7:26 ` [PATCH v10 7/9] drm/xe/amc: Guard xe_amc_work() with runtime PM Raag Jadav
2026-10-16  7:36   ` sashiko-bot
2026-10-16  7:26 ` [PATCH v10 8/9] drm/xe: Introduce xe_wedge Raag Jadav
2026-10-16  7:34   ` sashiko-bot [this message]
2026-10-16  7:26 ` [PATCH v10 9/9] drm/xe/ras: Move xe_ras_process_errors() to xe_ras Raag Jadav
2026-10-16  7:52   ` sashiko-bot
2026-10-16  8:05 ` ✗ CI.checkpatch: warning for Introduce xe_wedge (rev9) Patchwork
2026-10-16  8:06 ` ✗ 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=sashiko-outbox-173935@kernel.org \
    --to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
    --cc=intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org \
    --cc=raag.jadav@intel.com \
    --cc=sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev \
    /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