Re: [PATCH v5 03/21] gpu: host1x: Show number of pending waiters in debugfs

Michał Mirosław
2021-04-08T04:14:46Z

On Fri, Apr 02, 2021 at 07:02:32PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> 02.04.2021 00:19, Michał Mirosław пишет:
> > On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 04:34:13PM +0200, Mikko Perttunen wrote:
> >> On 3/23/21 12:16 PM, Thierry Reding wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 03:00:01PM +0200, Mikko Perttunen wrote:
> >>>> Show the number of pending waiters in the debugfs status file.
> >>>> This is useful for testing to verify that waiters do not leak
> >>>> or accumulate incorrectly.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Mikko Perttunen <mperttunen@nvidia.com>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> drivers/gpu/host1x/debug.c | 14 +++++++++++---
> >>>> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/host1x/debug.c b/drivers/gpu/host1x/debug.c
> >>>> index 1b4997bda1c7..8a14880c61bb 100644
> >>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/host1x/debug.c
> >>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/host1x/debug.c
> >>>> @@ -69,6 +69,7 @@ static int show_channel(struct host1x_channel *ch, void *data, bool show_fifo)
> >>>> static void show_syncpts(struct host1x *m, struct output *o)
> >>>> {
> >>>> + struct list_head *pos;
> >>>> unsigned int i;
> >>>> host1x_debug_output(o, "---- syncpts ----\n");
> >>>> @@ -76,12 +77,19 @@ static void show_syncpts(struct host1x *m, struct output *o)
> >>>> for (i = 0; i < host1x_syncpt_nb_pts(m); i++) {
> >>>> u32 max = host1x_syncpt_read_max(m->syncpt + i);
> >>>> u32 min = host1x_syncpt_load(m->syncpt + i);
> >>>> + unsigned int waiters = 0;
> >>>> - if (!min && !max)
> >>>> + spin_lock(&m->syncpt[i].intr.lock);
> >>>> + list_for_each(pos, &m->syncpt[i].intr.wait_head)
> >>>> + waiters++;
> >>>> + spin_unlock(&m->syncpt[i].intr.lock);
> >>>
> >>> Would it make sense to keep a running count so that we don't have to
> >>> compute it here?
> >>
> >> Considering this is just a debug facility, I think I prefer not adding a new
> >> field just for it.
> >
> > This looks like IRQ-disabled region, so unless only root can trigger
> > this code, maybe the additional field could save a potential headache?
> > How many waiters can there be in the worst case?
>
> The host1x's IRQ handler runs in a workqueue, so it should be okay.

Why, then, this uses a spinlock (and it has 'intr' in its name)?

Best Regards
Michał Mirosław