On 2022-01-17 2:17 p.m., Christian
König wrote:
Am 17.01.22 um 20:14 schrieb Andrey Grodzovsky:
Ping on the question
Oh, my! That was already more than a week ago and is completely swapped out of my head again.
Andrey
On 2022-01-05 1:11 p.m., Andrey Grodzovsky wrote:
Also, what about having the reset_active or in_reset flag in the reset_domain itself?
Of hand that sounds like a good idea.
What then about the adev->reset_sem semaphore ? Should we also move this to reset_domain ? Both of the moves have functional
implications only for XGMI case because there will be contention over accessing those single instance variables from multiple devices
while now each device has it's own copy.
Since this is a rw semaphore that should be unproblematic I think. It could just be that the cache line of the lock then plays ping/pong between the CPU cores.
What benefit the centralization into reset_domain gives - is it for example to prevent one device in a hive trying to access through MMIO another one's
VRAM (shared FB memory) while the other one goes through reset ?
I think that this is the killer argument for a centralized lock, yes.
np, i will add a patch with centralizing both flag into reset domain and resend.
Andrey
Christian.
Andrey
