On Monday, June 3, 2019 9:28:18 AM CEST Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 10:40:09AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > Quoting Janusz Krzysztofik (2019-05-30 10:24:26)
> > > In order to support driver hot unbind, some cleanup operations, now
> > > performed on PCI driver remove, must be called later, after all device
> > > file descriptors are closed.
> > >
> > > Split out those operations from the tail of pci_driver.remove()
> > > callback and put them into drm_driver.release() which is called as soon
> > > as all references to the driver are put. As a result, those cleanups
> > > will be now run on last drm_dev_put(), either still called from
> > > pci_driver.remove() if all device file descriptors are already closed,
> > > or on last drm_release() file operation.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Janusz Krzysztofik <janusz.krzysztofik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c | 17 +++++++++++++----
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h | 1 +
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c | 10 +++++++++-
> > > 3 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/
i915_drv.c
> > > index 83d2eb9e74cb..8be69f84eb6d 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c
> > > @@ -738,6 +738,7 @@ static int i915_load_modeset_init(struct drm_device
*dev)
> > >
> > > cleanup_gem:
> > > i915_gem_suspend(dev_priv);
> > > + i915_gem_fini_hw(dev_priv);
> > > i915_gem_fini(dev_priv);
> > > cleanup_modeset:
> > > intel_modeset_cleanup(dev);
> > > @@ -1685,7 +1686,6 @@ static void i915_driver_cleanup_hw(struct
drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> > > pci_disable_msi(pdev);
> > >
> > > pm_qos_remove_request(&dev_priv->pm_qos);
> > > - i915_ggtt_cleanup_hw(dev_priv);
> > > }
> > >
> > > /**
> > > @@ -1909,6 +1909,7 @@ int i915_driver_load(struct pci_dev *pdev, const
struct pci_device_id *ent)
> >
> > Would it make sense to rename load/unload from the legacy drm stubs over
> > to match the pci entry points?
>
> +1 on that rename, load/unload is really terribly confusing and has
> horrible semantics in the dri1 shadow attach world ...
> -Daniel
I've not responded to that comment, sorry, but I agree too. I've assumed
that's a candidate for a separate patch or series. I'm willing to work on
that as time permits.
Thanks,
Janusz
> >
> > > out_cleanup_hw:
> > > i915_driver_cleanup_hw(dev_priv);
> > > + i915_ggtt_cleanup_hw(dev_priv);
> > > out_cleanup_mmio:
> > > i915_driver_cleanup_mmio(dev_priv);
> > > out_runtime_pm_put:
> > > @@ -1960,21 +1961,29 @@ void i915_driver_unload(struct drm_device *dev)
> > > cancel_delayed_work_sync(&dev_priv->gpu_error.hangcheck_work);
> > > i915_reset_error_state(dev_priv);
> > >
> > > - i915_gem_fini(dev_priv);
> > > + i915_gem_fini_hw(dev_priv);
> > >
> > > intel_power_domains_fini_hw(dev_priv);
> > >
> > > i915_driver_cleanup_hw(dev_priv);
> > > - i915_driver_cleanup_mmio(dev_priv);
> > >
> > > enable_rpm_wakeref_asserts(dev_priv);
> > > - intel_runtime_pm_cleanup(dev_priv);
> > > }
> > >
> > > static void i915_driver_release(struct drm_device *dev)
> > > {
> > > struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv = to_i915(dev);
> > >
> > > + disable_rpm_wakeref_asserts(dev_priv);
> > > +
> > > + i915_gem_fini(dev_priv);
> > > +
> > > + i915_ggtt_cleanup_hw(dev_priv);
> > > + i915_driver_cleanup_mmio(dev_priv);
> > > +
> > > + enable_rpm_wakeref_asserts(dev_priv);
> > > + intel_runtime_pm_cleanup(dev_priv);
> >
> > We should really propagate the release nomenclature down and replace our
> > mixed fini/cleanup. Consistency is helpful when trying to work out which
> > phase the code is in.
> >
> > > i915_driver_cleanup_early(dev_priv);
> > > i915_driver_destroy(dev_priv);
> > > }
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/
i915_drv.h
> > > index a2664ea1395b..d08e7bd83544 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.h
> > > @@ -3047,6 +3047,7 @@ void i915_gem_init_mmio(struct drm_i915_private
*i915);
> > > int __must_check i915_gem_init(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv);
> > > int __must_check i915_gem_init_hw(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv);
> > > void i915_gem_init_swizzling(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv);
> > > +void i915_gem_fini_hw(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv);
> > > void i915_gem_fini(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv);
> > > int i915_gem_wait_for_idle(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> > > unsigned int flags, long timeout);
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/
i915_gem.c
> > > index 7cafd5612f71..c6a8e665a6ba 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> > > @@ -4667,7 +4667,7 @@ int i915_gem_init(struct drm_i915_private
*dev_priv)
> > > return ret;
> > > }
> > >
> > > -void i915_gem_fini(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> > > +void i915_gem_fini_hw(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> > > {
> > > GEM_BUG_ON(dev_priv->gt.awake);
> > >
> > > @@ -4681,6 +4681,14 @@ void i915_gem_fini(struct drm_i915_private
*dev_priv)
> > > intel_uc_fini_hw(dev_priv);
> > > intel_uc_fini(dev_priv);
> >
> > > intel_engines_cleanup(dev_priv);
> >
> > intel_engines_cleanup -> i915_gem_fini -- that is in principle just
> > freeing structs. One side effect it does have is to make all engines
> > unavailable (but it doesn't update the engine_mask so the inconsistency
> > might catch us out if it is not one of the last cleanup actions).
> >
> > intel_uc_fini() is a bit of a mixed bag. It looks like it flushes
> > runtime state, so preferrably that flush should be moved to the
> > _fini_hw so that _fini is pure cleanup. So for the time being, best to
> > leave intel_uc_fini() here.
> >
> > > + mutex_unlock(&dev_priv->drm.struct_mutex);
> > > +
> > > + i915_gem_drain_freed_objects(dev_priv);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +void i915_gem_fini(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> > > +{
> > > + mutex_lock(&dev_priv->drm.struct_mutex);
> > > i915_gem_contexts_fini(dev_priv);
> > > i915_gem_fini_scratch(dev_priv);
> > > mutex_unlock(&dev_priv->drm.struct_mutex);
> >
> > That split looks sensible to me, with the consideration as to whether
> > defer intel_engines_cleanup() as well,
> > Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > -Chris
>
>
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
