Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Since we allow ourselves to use non-process context during parking, we > cannot allow ourselves to sleep and in particular cannot call > del_timer_sync() -- but we can use a plain del_timer(). > > Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=111375 > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_lrc.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_lrc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_lrc.c > index bb74954889dd..b97047d58d3d 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_lrc.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_lrc.c > @@ -2728,7 +2728,7 @@ static u32 *gen8_emit_fini_breadcrumb_rcs(struct i915_request *request, u32 *cs) > > static void execlists_park(struct intel_engine_cs *engine) > { > - del_timer_sync(&engine->execlists.timer); > + del_timer(&engine->execlists.timer); There will be another sync point then somewhere else or not needed? Also are irq safe timers where we could do a sync deletion. So my question is why the need for a sync point disappeared? -Mika > } > > void intel_execlists_set_default_submission(struct intel_engine_cs *engine) > -- > 2.23.0.rc1 _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
