"Pandiyan, Dhinakaran" <dhinakaran.pandiyan@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Thu, 2018-02-08 at 14:48 -0800, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
>> Hi Andy,
>>
>> thanks for getting involved with PSR and sorry for not replying sooner.
>>
>> I first saw this patch on that bugzilla entry but only now I stop to
>> really think why I have written the code that way.
>>
>> So some clarity below.
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 10:07:09PM +0000, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> > The current PSR code has a two call sites that each schedule delayed
>> > work to activate PSR. As far as I can tell, each call site intends
>> > to keep PSR inactive for the given amount of time and then allow it
>> > to be activated.
>> >
>> > The call sites are:
>> >
>> > - intel_psr_enable(), which explicitly states in a comment that
>> > it's trying to keep PSR off a short time after the dispay is
>> > initialized as a workaround.
>>
>> First of all I really want to kill this call here and remove the
>> FIXME. It was an ugly hack that I added to solve a corner case
>> that was leaving me with blank screens when activating so sooner.
>>
>> >
>> > - intel_psr_flush(). There isn't an explcit explanation, but the
>> > intent is presumably to keep PSR off until the display has been
>> > idle for 100ms.
>>
>> The reason for 100 is kind of ugly-nonsense-empirical value
>> I concluded from VLV/CHV experience.
>> On platforms with HW tracking HW waits few identical frames
>> until really activating PSR. VLV/CHV activation is immediate.
>> But HW is also different and there it seemed that hw needed a
>> few more time before starting the transitions.
>> Furthermore I didn't want to add that so quickly because I didn't
>> want to take the risk of killing battery with software tracking
>> when doing transitions so quickly using software tracking.
>>
>> >
>> > The current code doesn't actually accomplish either of these goals.
>> > Rather than keeping PSR inactive for the given amount of time, it
>> > will schedule PSR for activation after the given time, with the
>> > earliest target time in such a request winning.
>>
>> Putting that way I was asking myself how that hack had ever fixed
>> my issue. Because the way you explained here seems obvious that it
>> wouldn't ever fix my bug or any other.
>>
>> So I applied your patch and it made even more sense (without considering
>> the fact I want to kill the first call anyways).
>>
>> So I came back, removed your patch and tried to understand how did
>> it ever worked.
>>
>> So, the thing is that intel_psr_flush will never be really executed
>> if intel_psr_enable wasn't executed. That is guaranteed by:
>>
>> mutex_lock(&dev_priv->psr.lock);
>> if (!dev_priv->psr.enabled) {
>>
>> So, intel_psr_enable will be for sure the first one to schedule the
>> work delayed to the ugly higher delay.
>>
>> >
>> > In other words, if intel_psr_enable() is immediately followed by
>> > intel_psr_flush(), then PSR will be activated after 100ms even if
>> > intel_psr_enable() wanted a longer delay. And, if the screen is
>> > being constantly updated so that intel_psr_flush() is called once
>> > per frame at 60Hz, PSR will still be activated once every 100ms.
>>
>> During this time you are right, many calls of intel_psr_exit
>> coming from flush functions can be called... But none of
>> them will schedule the work with 100 delay.
>>
>> they will skip on
>> if (!work_busy(&dev_priv->psr.work.work))
>
> Wouldn't work_busy() return false until the work is actually queued
> which is 100ms after calling schedule_delayed_work()?
That's not my understanding of work_busy man.
"work_busy - test whether a work is currently pending or running"
I consider it as pending one...
But yeap... it was a long time ago that I did this so I'm not sure...
>
> For e.g, flushes at 0, 16, 32...96 will have work_busy() returning false
> until 100ms.
>
> The first psr_work will end up getting scheduled at 100ms, which I
> believe is not what we want.
>
>
> However, I think
>
> if (dev_priv->psr.busy_frontbuffer_bits)
> goto unlock;
>
> intel_psr_activate(intel_dp);
>
> in psr_work might prevent activate being called at 100ms if an
> invalidate happened to be called before that.
>
>
>
>
>>
>> So, the higher delayed *hack* will be respected and PSR won't get
>> activated before that.
>>
>> On the other hand you might ask what if,
>> for some strange reason,
>> (intel_dp->panel_power_cycle_delay * 5) is lesser than 100.
>> Well, on this case this would be ok, because it happens only
>> once and only on gen > 9 where hw tracking will wait the minimal
>> number of frames before the actual transition to PSR.
>>
>> In either cases I believe we are safe.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Rodrigo.
> _______________________________________________
> dri-devel mailing list
> dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
