Re: [PATCH 1/3] drm/i915: Stop second guessing the caller for intel_uncore_wait_for_register()

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

 



On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 04:02:05PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Allow the caller to use the fast_timeout_us to specify how long to wait
> within the atomic section, rather than transparently switching to a
> sleeping loop for larger values. This is required as some callsites may
> need a long wait and are in an atomic section.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Michal Wajdeczko <michal.wajdeczko@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c | 11 ++++++-----
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c
> index eb38392a2435..53c8457869f6 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c
> @@ -1601,7 +1601,7 @@ static int gen6_reset_engines(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
>   *
>   * Otherwise, the wait will timeout after @slow_timeout_ms milliseconds.
>   * For atomic context @slow_timeout_ms must be zero and @fast_timeout_us
> - * must be not larger than 10 microseconds.
> + * must be not larger than 20,0000 microseconds.

So we don't enforce this any more ?

>   *
>   * Note that this routine assumes the caller holds forcewake asserted, it is
>   * not suitable for very long waits. See intel_wait_for_register() if you
> @@ -1623,16 +1623,17 @@ int __intel_wait_for_register_fw(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
>  	int ret;
>  
>  	/* Catch any overuse of this function */
> -	might_sleep_if(fast_timeout_us > 10 || slow_timeout_ms);
> +	might_sleep_if(slow_timeout_ms);
>  
> -	if (fast_timeout_us > 10)
> -		ret = _wait_for(done, fast_timeout_us, 10);
> -	else
> +	ret = -ETIMEDOUT;
> +	if (fast_timeout_us && fast_timeout_us < 20000)
>  		ret = _wait_for_atomic(done, fast_timeout_us, 0);
>  	if (ret)
>  		ret = wait_for(done, slow_timeout_ms);

What if someone passes fast=20001us and slow=0ms ?
Maybe like this:

	might_sleep_if(fast_timeout_us > 20000 || slow_timeout_ms);

	if (fast_timeout_us && fast_timeout_us < 20000)
		ret = _wait_for_atomic(done, fast_timeout_us, 0);
	else
		slow_timeout_ms += fast_timeout_us/1000;

	if (slow_timeout_ms)
		ret = wait_for(done, slow_timeout_ms);


-Michal
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx




[Index of Archives]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]
  Powered by Linux