Re: [PATCH] drm: avoid spurious EBUSY due to nonblocking atomic modesets

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 1:14 PM Marius Vlad <marius.vlad@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 12:58:30PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 3:36 PM Marius Vlad <marius.vlad@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 07:34:00AM +0000, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 5 Jul 2018 at 11:21, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > When doing an atomic modeset with ALLOW_MODESET drivers are allowed to
> > > > > pull in arbitrary other resources, including CRTCs (e.g. when
> > > > > reconfiguring global resources).
> > > > >
> > > > > But in nonblocking mode userspace has then no idea this happened,
> > > > > which can lead to spurious EBUSY calls, both:
> > > > > - when that other CRTC is currently busy doing a page_flip the
> > > > >   ALLOW_MODESET commit can fail with an EBUSY
> > > > > - on the other CRTC a normal atomic flip can fail with EBUSY because
> > > > >   of the additional commit inserted by the kernel without userspace's
> > > > >   knowledge
> > > > >
> > > > > For blocking commits this isn't a problem, because everyone else will
> > > > > just block until all the CRTC are reconfigured. Only thing userspace
> > > > > can notice is the dropped frames without any reason for why frames got
> > > > > dropped.
> > > > >
> > > > > Consensus is that we need new uapi to handle this properly, but no one
> > > > > has any idea what exactly the new uapi should look like. As a stop-gap
> > > > > plug this problem by demoting nonblocking commits which might cause
> > > > > issues by including CRTCs not in the original request to blocking
> > > > > commits.
> > > Gentle ping. I've tried out Linus's master tree and, and like Pekka,
> > > I've noticed this isn't integrated/added.
> > >
> > > Noticed this is fixing (also) DPMS when multiple outputs are in use.
> > > Wondering if we can just use a _ONCE() variant instead of WARN_ON(). I'm seeing
> > > the warning quite often.
> >
> > On which driver/chip does this happen?
> I've tried it out on i915.

lspci -nn please.

Also adding Ville, who has an idea where this can all go wrong. The
one he pointed out thus far is gen12+ only though.
-Daniel

> > -Daniel
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for writing this up Daniel, and for reminding me about it some
> > > > time later as well ...
> > > >
> > > > Reviewed-by: Daniel Stone <daniels@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Daniel
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > dri-devel mailing list
> > > > dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Daniel Vetter
> > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
> > http://blog.ffwll.ch



-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel



[Index of Archives]     [Linux DRI Users]     [Linux Intel Graphics]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]
  Powered by Linux