On 13/01/16 14:41, Imre Deak wrote:
On ke, 2016-01-13 at 14:32 +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 02:11:42PM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 13/01/16 13:36, Imre Deak wrote:
On ke, 2016-01-13 at 12:46 +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
On 11/01/16 16:56, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 05:36:46PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä
wrote:
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 03:16:16PM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin
wrote:
Don't know, I leave this one to whoever grabbed the lock
around
intel_init_gt_powersave in the first place. Maybe there
was a
special
reason.. after git blame od intel_display.c eventually
completed, adding
Imre and Ville to cc.
Hmm. I don't recall the details anymore, but looking at the
code
pushing
the locking down to valleyview_setup_pctx() looks entirely
reasonable to
me.
iirc, this locking only exists to keep the WARN() at bay. But
it is
pedagogical, I guess.
Don't really know this area, but what about the
intel_gen6_powersave_work->valleyview_enable_rps-
valleyview_check_pctx
which dereferences the dev_priv->vlv_pctx, which is set/cleared
in
valleyview_setup_pctx/valleyview_cleanup_pctx, which would now
be
outside both struct_mutex and the rps lock?
dev_priv->vlv_pctx is not protected on the premise that the
driver
init/cleanup functions can't race and gen6_powersave_work() is
scheduled only after intel_init_gt_powersave() and flushed
before intel_cleanup_gt_powersave().
rps_lock protects the RPS HW accesses themselves and struct_mutex
was
taken for the GEM allocation. Taking it at high level around
intel_init_gt_powersave() was kind of a copy&paste in the commit
you
found, there is more on that in 79f5b2c75992.
Thanks for digging this out.
It is more involved than what Chris pasted then, and while I hoped
to be able to quickly shove that into a patch, I cannot allow the
time for more the extensive analysis.
Imre just confirmed that struct_mutex is only for the GEM
allocations in the vlv_setup_ctx, right Imre?
Yes, that's my understanding.
I glanced at 79f5b2c75992 and saw it pulled out a bunch of locking from
lower down to the top level so it sounded like doing the reverse would
not be straightforward. Perhaps I overestimated it.
Regards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
