Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2021-01-21 10:55:49)
>
> On 21/01/2021 00:32, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > Reduce the bulk of execlists_submission_tasklet by moving the unlikely
> > reset function out of line.
> >
> > add/remove: 1/0 grow/shrink: 0/1 up/down: 960/-935 (25)
> > Function old new delta
> > execlists_reset - 960 +960
> > execlists_submission_tasklet 6629 5694 -935
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > .../drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c | 36 +++++++++----------
> > 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c
> > index 740ff05fd692..43cc85241886 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c
> > @@ -2299,10 +2299,13 @@ static void execlists_capture(struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
> > kfree(cap);
> > }
> >
> > -static void execlists_reset(struct intel_engine_cs *engine, const char *msg)
> > +static noinline void execlists_reset(struct intel_engine_cs *engine)
> > {
> > + struct intel_engine_execlists *el = &engine->execlists;
> > const unsigned int bit = I915_RESET_ENGINE + engine->id;
> > unsigned long *lock = &engine->gt->reset.flags;
> > + unsigned long eir = fetch_and_zero(&el->error_interrupt);
>
> We got the locking wrong for this one. Irq handler side is under
> gt->irq_lock, but there are unlocked rmw cycles in the tasklet. Not
> counting this fetch_and_zero which is also unlocked.
It doesn't require locking.
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
