On 06/03/2017 10:15, Chris Wilson wrote:
In order for the missed-irq update to take effect, the device must be
idle. So when the user updates the fault injection via debugfs, idle the
device.
v2: Idle is explicitly required for setting test_irq, and good behaviour
for clearing the missed_irq.
Testcase: igt/drv_missed_irq
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c | 55 +++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
index 4a3e5b9552f8..511d3541d3d5 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_debugfs.c
@@ -4138,6 +4138,39 @@ DEFINE_SIMPLE_ATTRIBUTE(i915_wedged_fops,
"%llu\n");
static int
+fault_irq_set(struct drm_i915_private *i915, unsigned long *irq, u64 val)
+{
+ int err;
+
+ err = mutex_lock_interruptible(&i915->drm.struct_mutex);
+ if (err)
+ return err;
+
+ err = i915_gem_wait_for_idle(i915,
+ I915_WAIT_LOCKED |
+ I915_WAIT_INTERRUPTIBLE);
+ if (err)
+ goto err_unlock;
+
+ /* Retire to kick idle work */
+ i915_gem_retire_requests(i915);
+ GEM_BUG_ON(i915->gt.active_requests);
+
+ *irq = val & INTEL_INFO(i915)->ring_mask;
Looks like a type width mismatch on 32-bit.
Should we change missed_irq_rings to an u64?
+ mutex_unlock(&i915->drm.struct_mutex);
+
+ /* Flush idle worker to disarm irq */
+ while (flush_delayed_work(&i915->gt.idle_work))
+ ;
Worth sticking a schedule in here or something? Not worth it for debugfs
I guess since we don't have it elsewhere.
+
+ return 0;
+
+err_unlock:
+ mutex_unlock(&i915->drm.struct_mutex);
+ return err;
+}
+
+static int
i915_ring_missed_irq_get(void *data, u64 *val)
{
struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = data;
@@ -4149,18 +4182,8 @@ i915_ring_missed_irq_get(void *data, u64 *val)
static int
i915_ring_missed_irq_set(void *data, u64 val)
{
- struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = data;
- struct drm_device *dev = &dev_priv->drm;
- int ret;
-
- /* Lock against concurrent debugfs callers */
- ret = mutex_lock_interruptible(&dev->struct_mutex);
- if (ret)
- return ret;
- dev_priv->gpu_error.missed_irq_rings = val;
- mutex_unlock(&dev->struct_mutex);
-
- return 0;
+ struct drm_i915_private *i915 = data;
+ return fault_irq_set(i915, &i915->gpu_error.missed_irq_rings, val);
}
DEFINE_SIMPLE_ATTRIBUTE(i915_ring_missed_irq_fops,
@@ -4180,13 +4203,11 @@ i915_ring_test_irq_get(void *data, u64 *val)
static int
i915_ring_test_irq_set(void *data, u64 val)
{
- struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = data;
+ struct drm_i915_private *i915 = data;
- val &= INTEL_INFO(dev_priv)->ring_mask;
+ val &= INTEL_INFO(i915)->ring_mask;
DRM_DEBUG_DRIVER("Masking interrupts on rings 0x%08llx\n", val);
- dev_priv->gpu_error.test_irq_rings = val;
-
- return 0;
+ return fault_irq_set(i915, &i915->gpu_error.test_irq_rings, val);
}
DEFINE_SIMPLE_ATTRIBUTE(i915_ring_test_irq_fops,
Reviewed-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
Regards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
