[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/4] drm/i915/bxt: Avoid early timeout during PLL enable

[Imre Deak]

On ti, 2016-06-28 at 12:05 +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> On 28/06/16 11:48, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 01:37:30PM +0300, Imre Deak wrote:
> > > Since wait_for_atomic doesn't re-check the wait-for condition after
> > > expiry of the timeout it can fail when called from non-atomic context
> > > even if the condition is set correctly before the expiry. Fix this by
> > > using the non-atomic wait_for instead.
> > 
> > wait_for_atomic is indeed only safe to be called from atomic context.
> > Likewise, wait_for is only safe to called from !atomic context.
> > 
> > > I noticed this via the PLL locking timing out incorrectly, with this fix
> > > I couldn't reproduce the problem.
> > > 
> > > Fixes: 0351b93992aa ("drm/i915: Do not lie about atomic timeout granularity")
> > 
> > The bug would be using wait_for_atomic from non-atomic context, and so
> > older.
> > 
> > 
> > > CC: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>
> > > CC: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin at intel.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Imre Deak <imre.deak at intel.com>
> > > ---
> > >   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dpll_mgr.c | 4 ++--
> > >   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dpll_mgr.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dpll_mgr.c
> > > index c0eff15..e130c3e 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dpll_mgr.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_dpll_mgr.c
> > > @@ -1374,8 +1374,8 @@ static void bxt_ddi_pll_enable(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> > >   	I915_WRITE(BXT_PORT_PLL_ENABLE(port), temp);
> > >   	POSTING_READ(BXT_PORT_PLL_ENABLE(port));
> > > 
> > > -	if (wait_for_atomic_us((I915_READ(BXT_PORT_PLL_ENABLE(port)) &
> > > -			PORT_PLL_LOCK), 200))
> > > +	if (wait_for_us((I915_READ(BXT_PORT_PLL_ENABLE(port)) & PORT_PLL_LOCK),
> > > +			200))
> > 
> > Does this work with CONFIG_I915_DEBUG and CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP ?
> 
> CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT is also required.
> 
> There were a bunch of these WARNs triggering in various places. I think 
> I had patches to fix them but at the same time Mika had a more 
> comprehensive work in progress for the whole area. I suppose that just 
> got delayed to much.
> 
> AFAIR the meat of the discussion was what is more important - sleep 
> granularity or timeout accuracy. I preferred the former to avoid waiting 
> for too long for operations which are normally much quicker than a 
> jiffie and normally succeed.
> 
> Another issue if wait_for_us for sleeps < 10us is not the most efficient 
> implementation. So another idea I had is to implement those via the 
> wait_for_atomic but without the in_atomic WARN. And obviously now after 
> Imre found this with the extra cond check as well.

For that kind of optimization, the comment at cpu_clock() could be
interesting when comparing cpu_clock(i) wrt. cpu_clock(j) and i!=j. I
couldn't see any backward jumps between such timestamps, but I'm not
sure if that comment can be disregarded. Maybe on Intel/TSC it can.

> So I think Imre's patches are good in principle, should go in, and 
> probably afterwards we can talk about improving wait_for_us for timeouts 
> under 10us and potentially the timeout precision as well.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Tvrtko