On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 05:29:44PM +0200, Imre Deak wrote: > After > commit 2c7d0602c815277f7cb7c932b091288710d8aba7 > Author: Imre Deak <imre.deak@xxxxxxxxx> > Date: Mon Dec 5 18:27:37 2016 +0200 > > drm/i915/gen9: Fix PCODE polling during CDCLK change notification > > there is still one report of the CDCLK-change request timing out on a > KBL machine, see the Reference link. On that machine the maximum time > the request took to succeed was 34ms, so increase the timeout to 100ms. > > Reference: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=99345 > Cc: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Imre Deak <imre.deak@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h | 2 +- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c | 11 ++++++----- > 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h > index 821c57c..7970ba8 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h > @@ -87,7 +87,7 @@ > int cpu, ret, timeout = (US) * 1000; \ > u64 base; \ > _WAIT_FOR_ATOMIC_CHECK(ATOMIC); \ > - BUILD_BUG_ON((US) > 50000); \ > + BUILD_BUG_ON((US) > 100000); \ > if (!(ATOMIC)) { \ > preempt_disable(); \ > cpu = smp_processor_id(); \ > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c > index fe243c6..90134b0 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_pm.c > @@ -7910,10 +7910,10 @@ static bool skl_pcode_try_request(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, u32 mbox, > * @timeout_base_ms: timeout for polling with preemption enabled > * > * Keep resending the @request to @mbox until PCODE acknowledges it, PCODE > - * reports an error or an overall timeout of @timeout_base_ms+10 ms expires. > + * reports an error or an overall timeout of @timeout_base_ms+100 ms expires. > * The request is acknowledged once the PCODE reply dword equals @reply after > * applying @reply_mask. Polling is first attempted with preemption enabled > - * for @timeout_base_ms and if this times out for another 10 ms with > + * for @timeout_base_ms and if this times out for another 100 ms with > * preemption disabled. > * > * Returns 0 on success, %-ETIMEDOUT in case of a timeout, <0 in case of some > @@ -7949,14 +7949,15 @@ int skl_pcode_request(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv, u32 mbox, u32 request, > * worst case) _and_ PCODE was busy for some reason even after a > * (queued) request and @timeout_base_ms delay. As a workaround retry > * the poll with preemption disabled to maximize the number of > - * requests. Increase the timeout from @timeout_base_ms to 10ms to > + * requests. Increase the timeout from @timeout_base_ms to 100ms to > * account for interrupts that could reduce the number of these > - * requests. > + * requests, and for any quirks of the PCODE firmware that delays > + * the request completion. > */ > DRM_DEBUG_KMS("PCODE timeout, retrying with preemption disabled\n"); > WARN_ON_ONCE(timeout_base_ms > 3); > preempt_disable(); > - ret = wait_for_atomic(COND, 10); > + ret = wait_for_atomic(COND, 100); > preempt_enable(); Ugh. Straw + camel. How about something like: __try_request_atomic: cond_resched(); preempt_disable() ret = COND ? wait_for_atomic(COND, 10) : 0; preempt_enable(); return ret; try_request: ret = wait_for(__try_request_atomic() == 0, 100); So that our preempt-off period doesn't grow completely unchecked, or do we need that 34ms loop? -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
