Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Quoting Mika Kuoppala (2018-03-02 15:50:53)
>> Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>> > During reset/wedging, we have to clean up the requests on the timeline
>> > and flush the pending interrupt state. Currently, we are abusing the irq
>> > disabling of the timeline spinlock to protect the irq state in
>> > conjunction to the engine's timeline requests, but this is accidental
>> > and conflates the spinlock with the irq state. A baffling state of
>> > affairs for the reader.
>> >
>> > Instead, explicitly disable irqs over the critical section, and separate
>> > modifying the irq state from the timeline's requests.
>> >
>> > Suggested-by: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > Cc: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > Cc: Michel Thierry <michel.thierry@xxxxxxxxx>
>> > ---
>> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c | 21 +++++++++++++++------
>> > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c
>> > index 0482e54c94f0..7d1109aceabb 100644
>> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c
>> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_lrc.c
>> > @@ -689,11 +689,13 @@ static void execlists_cancel_requests(struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
>> >
>> > GEM_TRACE("%s\n", engine->name);
>> >
>> > - spin_lock_irqsave(&engine->timeline->lock, flags);
>> > + local_irq_save(flags);
>>
>> Chris explained in irc that this is for lockdep only. It was a bit
>> confusing as we already are guaranteed exclusive access to
>> state by tasklet being killed and dead at this point.
>>
>> I think this warrants a comment that this is to soothe lockdep.
>
> /*
> * Before we call engine->cancel_requests(), we should have exclusive
> * access to the submission state. This is arranged for us by the caller
> * disabling the interrupt generation, the tasklet and other threads
> * that may then access the same state, giving us a free hand to
> * reset state. However, we still need to let lockdep be aware that
> * we know this state may be accessed in hardirq context, so we
> * disable the irq around this manipulation and we want to keep
> * the spinlock focused on its duties and not accidentally conflate
> * coverage to the submission's irq state. (Similarly, although we
> * shouldn't need to disable irq around the manipulation of the
> * submission's irq state, we also wish to remind ourselves that
> * it is irq state.)
> */
>
>> >
>> > /* Cancel the requests on the HW and clear the ELSP tracker. */
>> > execlists_cancel_port_requests(execlists);
>> >
>> > + spin_lock(&engine->timeline->lock);
>> > @@ -1618,10 +1622,11 @@ static void reset_common_ring(struct intel_engine_cs *engine,
>> > GEM_TRACE("%s seqno=%x\n",
>> > engine->name, request ? request->global_seqno : 0);
>> >
>> > - spin_lock_irqsave(&engine->timeline->lock, flags);
>
> /* See execlists_cancel_requests() for the irq/spinlock split. */
>> > + local_irq_save(flags);
>
> Good?
Much more than I bargained for. Excellent!
-Mika
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
