On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 11:19:28PM +0300, Imre Deak wrote: > On Fri, 2014-06-06 at 22:15 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 09:38:26PM +0300, Imre Deak wrote: > > > On Fri, 2014-06-06 at 19:46 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 12:08:43PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 02:04:37PM +0300, Imre Deak wrote: > > > > > > If the timer putting the last forcewake refcount was pending and we > > > > > > canceled it, we'll leak the corresponding forcewake and RPM references. > > > > > > > > > > > > v2: > > > > > > - do the ptr casting at the caller instead of adding a separate helper > > > > > > for this (Chris) > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Imre Deak <imre.deak@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > Both patches merged to dinq (Chris clarified on irc that his r-b is for > > > > both). > > > > > > > > Since this only blows up in a super-contrived testcase I don't > > > > think this is material for -fixes. > > > > > > Note that the issue fixed by 1/2 could also happen normally, though the > > > window for race is small. One scenario would be runtime resume > > > ->deferred rps_enable followed directly by system suspend or gpu reset. > > > > The default runtime pm autosuspend delay is longer than the delayed rps > > enable, so for all practical purposes I think this is impossible. > > But system suspend is not affected by that delay, it can happen right > after a runtime resume. Until we drop the forcewake time we hold a runtime pm ref. So I don't think there's an issue either on that side of the system resume ... Or do I miss something? -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
