From: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@collabora.com>
To: Nicolas Frattaroli <nicolas.frattaroli@collabora.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Ben Segall <bsegall@google.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
Valentin Schneider <vschneid@redhat.com>,
K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@amd.com>,
Steven Price <steven.price@arm.com>,
Liviu Dudau <liviu.dudau@arm.com>,
Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>,
Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org>,
Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@suse.de>,
David Airlie <airlied@gmail.com>, Simona Vetter <simona@ffwll.ch>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@linaro.org>,
Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
kernel@collabora.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] drm/panthor: Revisit reqs_lock handling in flush/reset paths
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2026 10:53:24 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260803105324.478ed594@fedora1.home> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260730-panthor-cache-flush-fix-v2-2-28790478bfff@collabora.com>
Hello Nicolas,
On Thu, 30 Jul 2026 13:45:15 +0200
Nicolas Frattaroli <nicolas.frattaroli@collabora.com> wrote:
> panthor_gpu_flush_caches() and panthor_gpu_soft_reset() would read (and
> even reset) the contents of the pending_reqs register outside of holding
> the reqs_lock.
Can you elaborate a bit on the race being fixed here? If pending_reqs bits
are truly cleared before the wake_up_all() call (which would require a
WRITE_ONCE() to be enforced, admittedly), there's no risk for the
wait_event() call to do a test before the bits have been updated,
and this holds even if the test is done without the lock held.
The other race I could think of is two threads calling
panthor_gpu_flush_caches() concurrently, and the second one stealing
the FLUSH_COMPLETED event the first thread waits on and re-issuing a
second flush on top, thus delaying the completion for the first thread.
But that should be covered by the cache_flush_lock.
> Additionally, when it did hold the lock, it did so with
> the irqsave/irqrestore variants, even though the spinlock was never
> acquired in an atomic context, just the threaded handler.
>
> Use the new wait_event_lock_timeout() macro to check pending_reqs under
> the lock, and only do so without disabling interrupts.
>
> Fixes: 5cd894e258c4 ("drm/panthor: Add the GPU logical block")
> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Frattaroli <nicolas.frattaroli@collabora.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/panthor_gpu.c | 25 +++++++++++--------------
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/panthor_gpu.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/panthor_gpu.c
> index c013d6bf9a59..f015bde80abf 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/panthor_gpu.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/panthor_gpu.c
> @@ -330,35 +330,34 @@ int panthor_gpu_flush_caches(struct panthor_device *ptdev,
> u32 l2, u32 lsc, u32 other)
> {
> struct panthor_gpu *gpu = ptdev->gpu;
> - unsigned long flags;
> int ret = 0;
>
> /* Serialize cache flush operations. */
> guard(mutex)(&ptdev->gpu->cache_flush_lock);
>
> - spin_lock_irqsave(&ptdev->gpu->reqs_lock, flags);
> + spin_lock(&ptdev->gpu->reqs_lock);
Can we make the _irq{save,restore}-drop its own patch?
> if (!(ptdev->gpu->pending_reqs & GPU_IRQ_CLEAN_CACHES_COMPLETED)) {
> ptdev->gpu->pending_reqs |= GPU_IRQ_CLEAN_CACHES_COMPLETED;
> gpu_write(gpu->iomem, GPU_CMD, GPU_FLUSH_CACHES(l2, lsc, other));
> } else {
> ret = -EIO;
> }
> - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ptdev->gpu->reqs_lock, flags);
>
> - if (ret)
> + if (ret) {
> + spin_unlock(&ptdev->gpu->reqs_lock);
> return ret;
> + }
>
> - if (!wait_event_timeout(ptdev->gpu->reqs_acked,
> + if (!wait_event_lock_timeout(ptdev->gpu->reqs_acked,
> !(ptdev->gpu->pending_reqs & GPU_IRQ_CLEAN_CACHES_COMPLETED),
Assuming we really need to do the test with the lock held, could we add
a patch at the beginning of the series that fixes the race without depending
on the new wait macro, so that we have a version that can easily be backported?
> - msecs_to_jiffies(100))) {
> - spin_lock_irqsave(&ptdev->gpu->reqs_lock, flags);
> + ptdev->gpu->reqs_lock, msecs_to_jiffies(100))) {
> if ((ptdev->gpu->pending_reqs & GPU_IRQ_CLEAN_CACHES_COMPLETED) != 0 &&
> !(gpu_read(gpu->irq.iomem, INT_RAWSTAT) & GPU_IRQ_CLEAN_CACHES_COMPLETED))
> ret = -ETIMEDOUT;
> else
> ptdev->gpu->pending_reqs &= ~GPU_IRQ_CLEAN_CACHES_COMPLETED;
> - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ptdev->gpu->reqs_lock, flags);
> }
> + spin_unlock(&ptdev->gpu->reqs_lock);
I think a scoped_guard() could make things a bit cleaner, and given you
already turn the regular lock/unlock sequence into a guard in
panthor_gpu_soft_reset(), I'd do that here as well.
Regards,
Boris
[1]https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v7.2-rc5/source/drivers/gpu/drm/panthor/panthor_gpu.c#L114
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-08-03 8:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-07-30 11:45 [PATCH v2 0/3] Rework panthor's cache flush and soft reset locking Nicolas Frattaroli
2026-07-30 11:45 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] wait: Introduce non-irq variants of wait_event_lock_timeout Nicolas Frattaroli
2026-07-30 15:08 ` Liviu Dudau
2026-07-31 8:00 ` Steven Price
2026-07-30 11:45 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] drm/panthor: Revisit reqs_lock handling in flush/reset paths Nicolas Frattaroli
2026-07-30 14:56 ` Liviu Dudau
2026-07-31 8:01 ` Steven Price
2026-08-03 8:53 ` Boris Brezillon [this message]
2026-08-03 13:13 ` Nicolas Frattaroli
2026-08-03 13:20 ` Nicolas Frattaroli
2026-08-03 15:59 ` Boris Brezillon
2026-07-30 11:45 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] drm/panthor: Add tracepoints for cache flushing Nicolas Frattaroli
2026-07-30 13:46 ` Steven Rostedt
2026-07-30 15:14 ` Liviu Dudau
2026-07-31 8:03 ` Steven Price
2026-08-03 9:03 ` Boris Brezillon
2026-08-04 14:44 ` Nicolas Frattaroli
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=20260803105324.478ed594@fedora1.home \
--to=boris.brezillon@collabora.com \
--cc=airlied@gmail.com \
--cc=bsegall@google.com \
--cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=grant.likely@linaro.org \
--cc=heiko@sntech.de \
--cc=juri.lelli@redhat.com \
--cc=kernel@collabora.com \
--cc=kprateek.nayak@amd.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=liviu.dudau@arm.com \
--cc=maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=mripard@kernel.org \
--cc=nicolas.frattaroli@collabora.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=simona@ffwll.ch \
--cc=steven.price@arm.com \
--cc=tzimmermann@suse.de \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=vschneid@redhat.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