[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/3] drm/i915: close PM interrupt masking races in the rps work func

[Ben Widawsky]

On Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 10:10:30PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 07:56:57PM +0000, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 09:26:48PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > On Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 10:08:17AM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
> > > > index 55518e3..3bc1479 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_irq.c
> > > > @@ -415,12 +415,7 @@ static void gen6_pm_rps_work(struct work_struct *work)
> > > >         gen6_set_rps(dev_priv->dev, new_delay);
> > > >         dev_priv->cur_delay = new_delay;
> > > >  
> > > > -       /*
> > > > -        * rps_lock not held here because clearing is non-destructive. There is
> > > > -        * an *extremely* unlikely race with gen6_rps_enable() that is prevented
> > > > -        * by holding struct_mutex for the duration of the write.
> > > > -        */
> > > > -       I915_WRITE(GEN6_PMIMR, pm_imr & ~pm_iir);
> > > > +       I915_WRITE(GEN6_PMIMR, pm_imr & dev_priv->pm_iir);
> > > >         mutex_unlock(&dev_priv->dev->struct_mutex);
> > > >  }
> > > 
> > > For this to work we'd need to hold the rps_lock (to avoid racing with the
> > > irq handler). But imo my approach is conceptually simpler: The work func
> > > grabs all oustanding PM interrupts and then enables them again in one go
> > > (protected by rps_lock).
> > 
> > I agree your approach is similar, but I think we should really consider
> > whether my approach actually requires the lock. I *think* it doesn't. At
> > least in my head my patch should fix the error you spotted. I don't
> > know, maybe I need to think some more.
> 
> 1. rps work reads dev_priv->pm_iir (anew in the line you've added).
> 2. irq handler runs, adds a new bit to dev_priv->pm_iir and sets PMIMR to
> dev_priv->pm_iir (under irqsafe rps_lock).
> 3. rps work writes crap to PMIMR.
> 
> I.e. same race, you've just dramatically reduced the window ;-)
> 
> > The reason I worked so hard to avoid doing it the way you did in my
> > original implementation is I was trying really hard to not break the
> > cardinal rule about minimizing time holding spinlock_irqs. To go with
> > the other patch, you probably want a POSTING_READ also before releasing
> > the spin_lock (though I think this is being a bit paranoid).
> 
> There POSTING_READ was to order the PMIMR write with the PMIIR write (both
> in the irq handler). There's no such ordering here (and the irq handler
> can't be interrupted) so I think we're save.
> 
> -Daniel

Oops, you're totally right, I think I meant:
-       I915_WRITE(GEN6_PMIMR, pm_imr & ~pm_iir);
+       I915_WRITE(GEN6_PMIMR, dev_priv->pm_iir);

With regarding to the POSTING_READ, the concern I had was if the write
to IMR doesn't land before releasing the spinlock, but I don't feel like
addressing that concern anymore.

Ben