On Fri, Jun 07, 2024 at 04:51:31PM +0200, Andi Shyti wrote: > The forcewake count and domains listing is multi process critical > and the uncore provides a spinlock for such cases. > > Lock the forcewake evaluation section in the fw_domains_show() > debugfs interface. > > Signed-off-by: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_pm_debugfs.c | 4 ++++ > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_pm_debugfs.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_pm_debugfs.c > index 4fcba42cfe34..0437fd8217e0 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_pm_debugfs.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_gt_pm_debugfs.c > @@ -71,6 +71,8 @@ static int fw_domains_show(struct seq_file *m, void *data) > struct intel_uncore_forcewake_domain *fw_domain; > unsigned int tmp; > > + spin_lock_irq(&uncore->lock); > + > seq_printf(m, "user.bypass_count = %u\n", > uncore->user_forcewake_count); > > @@ -79,6 +81,8 @@ static int fw_domains_show(struct seq_file *m, void *data) > intel_uncore_forcewake_domain_to_str(fw_domain->id), > READ_ONCE(fw_domain->wake_count)); > > + spin_unlock_irq(&uncore->lock); I was going to ask to move all of this to a function inside intel_uncore.c so we keep the lock access in there.... But then I noticed it is already spread all over :( Well, perhaps we should start from here to set the precedence and move things to its own component... but well, I won't block or make it hard, we do need this change and the overall uncore cleanup could be orthogonal. Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx> > + > return 0; > } > DEFINE_INTEL_GT_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE(fw_domains); > -- > 2.45.1 >
