Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: Do not lie about atomic wait granularity

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




On 01/02/16 14:15, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:

On 01/02/16 13:30, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 01:17:35PM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>

Currently the wait_for_atomic_us only allows for a millisecond
granularity which is not nice towards callers requesting small
micro-second waits.

Re-implement it so micro-second granularity is really supported
and not just in the name of the macro.

Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx>
---
Danger - this might break things which currently work by accident!
---
  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h | 21 ++++++++++++++++++---
  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
index f620023ed134..9e8a1202194c 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
@@ -63,10 +63,25 @@
      ret__;                                \
  })

+#define _wait_for_atomic(COND, US) ({ \
+    unsigned long end__; \
+    int ret__ = 0; \
+    get_cpu(); \

Hmm, by virtue of its name (and original intent), we are expected to be
in an atomic context and could just do a BUG_ON(!in_atomic()) to catch
misuse. Since the removal of the panic modeset, all callers outside of
intel_uncore.c are definitely abusing this and we would be better to use
a usleep[_range]() variant instead.

I considered a WARN_ON_ONCE and a BUILD_BUG_ON for very long waits but
chickened out on both.

I'll respin with a WARN_ON_ONCE(!in_atomic)) to start with.

Can't really do that it seems since in_atomic() will be always false on non-fully-preemptible kernels.

Could do the current cpu comparison trick to catch false timeouts due callers from non-atomic sections but not sure if it is worth it. So it looks like manual audit of call sites to me.

Or find a time source with micro-second resolution which does not go backwards on CPU migrations?

Regards,

Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx




[Index of Archives]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]
  Powered by Linux