Quoting Takashi Iwai (2019-04-10 11:09:47) > On Wed, 10 Apr 2019 10:17:33 +0200, > Chris Wilson wrote: > > > > While we only allow a single display power reference, the current > > acquisition/release is racy and a direct call may run concurrently with > > a runtime-pm worker. Prevent the double unreference by atomically > > tracking the display_power_active cookie. > > > > Testcase: igt/i915_pm_rpm/module-reload #glk-dsi > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@xxxxxxx> > > Cc: Imre Deak <imre.deak@xxxxxxxxx> > > I rather prefer a more straightforward conversion, e.g. something like > below. Checking the returned cookie as the state flag is not quite > intuitive, so revive the boolean state flag, and handle it > atomically. Access to the cookie itself is not atomic there, and theoretically there could be a get/put/get running concurrently. Are you sure don't want a refcount and lock here? :) Your call. For the case CI is hitting, it should do the trick (as we are only seeing the race on put/put I think). CI will answer in a hour or two. -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
