[PATCH 00/12] irq vblank handling rework

[Ville Syrjälä]

On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 10:35:59AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 11:26:55AM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > For everything but the reset_vblank_counter() thing:
> > Reviewed-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com>
> > 
> > And another caveat: I only glanced at the crtc_helper stuff. It looks
> > sane but I didn't go reading through the drivers to figure out if they
> > would fall over or work.
> 
> Oh, the rfc was really just that. I don't have any plans to burn my hands
> trying to merge those patches ;-) Especially since interest from non-i915
> hackers seems to be low.
> 
> > About the reset_vblank_counter(), I think we might still need it to keep
> > the counter sane when the power well goes off. But I think we have
> > other problems on that front esp. with suspend to disk. There the counter
> > should definitely get reset on all platforms, so we migth apply any kind
> > of diff to the user visible value. The fix would likely be to skip the
> > diff adjustment when resuming.
> > 
> > I tried to take a quick look at that yesterday but there was something
> > really fishy happening as the code didn't seem to observe the wraparound
> > at all, even though I confirmed w/ intel_reg_read that it definitely
> > did appear to wrap. I'll take another look at it today.
> > 
> > Another idea might be to rip out the diff adjustment altogether. That
> > should just mean that the user visible counter wouldn't advance at all
> > between drm_vblank_off() and drm_vblank_on(). But that might actually
> > be the sane thing to do. Maybe we should just do a +1 there to make
> > sure we don't report the same value before and after modeset. It should
> > fix both the suspend problems and the power well problem.
> 
> Hm, like I've mentioned yesterday on irc the tests I have actually pass,
> at least if I throw your sanitize_crtc patch on top. vblank frame counter
> values monotonically increase across suspend/resume, runtime pm and
> anything else I manged to throw at it. And the limit in the test is 100
> frames later, but I've only observed a few tens at most.
> 
> So I think the code as-is actually works. Whether intentional or not is
> still under dispute though ;-)
> 
> The real problem I have with the hsw counter reset is that the same issue
> should affect _any_ platform where we support runtime pm. Like snb or byt.
> But the code isn't there. Also if we have such a bug then it will also
> affect hibernate and suspend to disk. Which means that this should be done
> in drm_crtc_vblank_off/on, not in the guts of some random platforms
> runtime pm code.
> 
> So in my opinion the hsw vblank_count reset code needs to go anyway
> because:
> - Either it isn't need any more (and we have the tests for this now) and
>   it's just cargo-culted duct-tape.
> - Or we need, but then it's in the wrong spot.
> 
> Given that can you reconsider that patch please?

Yeah. So as discussed on irc I think the right fix would be to sample
the current counter in drm_vblank_on(), stick it into
dev->vblank[crtc].last, but skip the diff adjustment to the user visible
counter (maybe just +1 to make sure we never report the same value on
both sides of a modeset). That should cover both the suspend case and the
power well case. I can go and experiment with this a bit...

So I agree that the current code isn't the way things should be done.
And since I now have an idea how it should be done, I'm fine with
ripping the current thing out. So you can add:
Reviewed-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com>

-- 
Ville Syrjälä
Intel OTC