[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/2] drm/i915/guc: Use correct lock for CT event handler
Daniele Ceraolo Spurio
daniele.ceraolospurio at intel.com
Fri Nov 20 16:45:03 UTC 2020
On 11/20/2020 6:43 AM, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>
> On 20/11/2020 14:32, Chris Wilson wrote:
>> Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2020-11-20 09:56:36)
>>> From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin at intel.com>
>>>
>>> CT event handler is called under the gt->irq_lock from the interrupt
>>> handling paths so make it the same from the init path. I don't think
>>> this
>>> mismatch caused any functional issue but we need to wean the code of
>>> the
>>> global i915->irq_lock.
>>
>> ct_read definitely wants to be serialised. Is guc->irq_lock the right
>> choice?
>
> Not under my understanding and also confirmed by Daniele off line.
>
>>> Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin at intel.com>
>>> Cc: Daniele Ceraolo Spurio <daniele.ceraolospurio at intel.com>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_uc.c | 7 ++++---
>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_uc.c
>>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_uc.c
>>> index 220626c3ad81..6a0452815c41 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_uc.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/uc/intel_uc.c
>>> @@ -203,7 +203,8 @@ static void guc_disable_interrupts(struct
>>> intel_guc *guc)
>>> static int guc_enable_communication(struct intel_guc *guc)
>>> {
>>> - struct drm_i915_private *i915 = guc_to_gt(guc)->i915;
>>> + struct intel_gt *gt = guc_to_gt(guc);
>>> + struct drm_i915_private *i915 = gt->i915;
>>> int ret;
>>> GEM_BUG_ON(guc_communication_enabled(guc));
>>> @@ -223,9 +224,9 @@ static int guc_enable_communication(struct
>>> intel_guc *guc)
>>> guc_enable_interrupts(guc);
>>> /* check for CT messages received before we enabled
>>> interrupts */
>>> - spin_lock_irq(&i915->irq_lock);
>>> + spin_lock_irq(>->irq_lock);
>>> intel_guc_ct_event_handler(&guc->ct);
>>> - spin_unlock_irq(&i915->irq_lock);
>>> + spin_unlock_irq(>->irq_lock);
>>
>> You used guc->irq_lock in the previous patch. I suggest
>> intel_guc_ct_event_handler() should specify what lock it requires.
>
> There are indeed too many locks and too little asserts to help the
> reader.
>
> But the other end of the state ct_read needs is updated from the GuC
> firmware itself, which then send the interrupt, which we process in:
>
> guc_irq_handler
> -> intel_guc_to_host_event_handler
> -> intel_guc_ct_event_handler
>
> And this side runs under the gt->irq_lock.
>
guc->irq_lock is not very aptly named, as it is used to protect access
to the guc interrupt state variables (msg_enabled_mask, mmio_msg) and
has nothing to do with protecting the interrupt handler. For that, as
Tvrtko said, the GuC code can use the same lock the rest of the GT uses,
i.e. gt->irq_lock. Maybe we can rename guc->irq_lock to
guc->msg_state_lock for clarity?
Anyway, this is:
Reviewed-by: Daniele Ceraolo Spurio <daniele.ceraolospurio at intel.com>
Daniele
> Regards,
>
> Tvrtko
More information about the Intel-gfx
mailing list