Hi Andrzej,
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_context.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_context.h
> index 0a8d553da3f439..48f888c3da083b 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_context.h
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_context.h
> @@ -14,6 +14,7 @@
> #include "i915_drv.h"
> #include "intel_context_types.h"
> #include "intel_engine_types.h"
> +#include "intel_gt_pm.h"
> #include "intel_ring_types.h"
> #include "intel_timeline_types.h"
> #include "i915_trace.h"
> @@ -207,8 +208,11 @@ void intel_context_exit_engine(struct intel_context *ce);
> static inline void intel_context_enter(struct intel_context *ce)
> {
> lockdep_assert_held(&ce->timeline->mutex);
> - if (!ce->active_count++)
> - ce->ops->enter(ce);
> + if (ce->active_count++)
> + return;
> +
> + ce->ops->enter(ce);
> + intel_gt_pm_get(ce->vm->gt);
> }
>
> static inline void intel_context_mark_active(struct intel_context *ce)
> @@ -222,8 +226,11 @@ static inline void intel_context_exit(struct intel_context *ce)
> {
> lockdep_assert_held(&ce->timeline->mutex);
> GEM_BUG_ON(!ce->active_count);
> - if (!--ce->active_count)
> - ce->ops->exit(ce);
> + if (--ce->active_count)
> + return;
> +
> + intel_gt_pm_put_async(ce->vm->gt);
> + ce->ops->exit(ce);
shouldn't these two be swapped?
> }
>
> static inline struct intel_context *intel_context_get(struct intel_context *ce)
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_pm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_pm.c
> index e971b153fda976..ee531a5c142c77 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_pm.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_engine_pm.c
> @@ -114,6 +114,15 @@ __queue_and_release_pm(struct i915_request *rq,
>
> ENGINE_TRACE(engine, "parking\n");
>
> + /*
> + * Open coded one half of intel_context_enter, which we have to omit
> + * here (see the large comment below) and because the other part must
> + * not be called due constructing directly with __i915_request_create
> + * which increments active count via intel_context_mark_active.
> + */
> + GEM_BUG_ON(rq->context->active_count != 1);
> + __intel_gt_pm_get(engine->gt);
where is it's brother "put"?
Thanks,
Andi
> +
> /*
> * We have to serialise all potential retirement paths with our
> * submission, as we don't want to underflow either the
>
> ---
> base-commit: 3385d6482cd60f2a0bbb0fa97b70ae7dbba4f95c
> change-id: 20230330-hold_wakeref_for_active_vm-7f013a449ef3
>
> Best regards,
> --
> Andrzej Hajda <andrzej.hajda@xxxxxxxxx>
