[Intel-gfx] [Intel-xe] [PATCH v6] drm/i915: handle uncore spinlock when not available

[Coelho, Luciano]

On Thu, 2023-11-30 at 09:31 -0500, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 01:54:13PM +0000, Coelho, Luciano wrote:
> > On Thu, 2023-11-30 at 13:24 +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> > > On 30/11/2023 12:26, Coelho, Luciano wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2023-11-30 at 12:21 +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> > > > > On 30/11/2023 11:35, Luca Coelho wrote:
> > > > > > The uncore code may not always be available (e.g. when we build the
> > > > > > display code with Xe), so we can't always rely on having the uncore's
> > > > > > spinlock.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > To handle this, split the spin_lock/unlock_irqsave/restore() into
> > > > > > spin_lock/unlock() followed by a call to local_irq_save/restore() and
> > > > > > create wrapper functions for locking and unlocking the uncore's
> > > > > > spinlock.  In these functions, we have a condition check and only
> > > > > > actually try to lock/unlock the spinlock when I915 is defined, and
> > > > > > thus uncore is available.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > This keeps the ifdefs contained in these new functions and all such
> > > > > > logic inside the display code.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrto.ursulin at intel.com>
> > > > > > Cc: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula at intel.com>
> > > > > > Cc: Ville Syrjala <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com>
> > > > > > Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi at intel.com>
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Luca Coelho <luciano.coelho at intel.com>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > In v2:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >      * Renamed uncore_spin_*() to intel_spin_*()
> > > > > >      * Corrected the order: save, lock, unlock, restore
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > In v3:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >      * Undid the change to pass drm_i915_private instead of the lock
> > > > > >        itself, since we would have to include i915_drv.h and that pulls
> > > > > >        in a truckload of other includes.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > In v4:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >      * After a brief attempt to replace this with a different patch,
> > > > > >        we're back to this one;
> > > > > >      * Pass drm_i195_private again, and move the functions to
> > > > > >        intel_vblank.c, so we don't need to include i915_drv.h in a
> > > > > >        header file and it's already included in intel_vblank.c;
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > In v5:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >      * Remove stray include in intel_display.h;
> > > > > >      * Remove unnecessary inline modifiers in the new functions.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > In v6:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >      * Just removed the umlauts from Ville's name, because patchwork
> > > > > >        didn't catch my patch and I suspect it was some UTF-8 confusion.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >    drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_vblank.c | 49 ++++++++++++++++-----
> > > > > >    1 file changed, 39 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_vblank.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_vblank.c
> > > > > > index 2cec2abf9746..221fcd6bf77b 100644
> > > > > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_vblank.c
> > > > > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_vblank.c
> > > > > > @@ -265,6 +265,30 @@ int intel_crtc_scanline_to_hw(struct intel_crtc *crtc, int scanline)
> > > > > >    	return (scanline + vtotal - crtc->scanline_offset) % vtotal;
> > > > > >    }
> > > > > >    
> > > > > > +/*
> > > > > > + * The uncore version of the spin lock functions is used to decide
> > > > > > + * whether we need to lock the uncore lock or not.  This is only
> > > > > > + * needed in i915, not in Xe.
> > > > > > + *
> > > > > > + * This lock in i915 is needed because some old platforms (at least
> > > > > > + * IVB and possibly HSW as well), which are not supported in Xe, need
> > > > > > + * all register accesses to the same cacheline to be serialized,
> > > > > > + * otherwise they may hang.
> > > > > > + */
> > > > > > +static void intel_vblank_section_enter(struct drm_i915_private *i915)
> > > > > > +{
> > > > > > +#ifdef I915
> > > > > > +	spin_lock(&i915->uncore.lock);
> > > > > > +#endif
> > > > > > +}
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +static void intel_vblank_section_exit(struct drm_i915_private *i915)
> > > > > > +{
> > > > > > +#ifdef I915
> > > > > > +	spin_unlock(&i915->uncore.lock);
> > > > > > +#endif
> > > > > > +}
> > > > > > +
> > > > > >    static bool i915_get_crtc_scanoutpos(struct drm_crtc *_crtc,
> > > > > >    				     bool in_vblank_irq,
> > > > > >    				     int *vpos, int *hpos,
> > > > > > @@ -302,11 +326,12 @@ static bool i915_get_crtc_scanoutpos(struct drm_crtc *_crtc,
> > > > > >    	}
> > > > > >    
> > > > > >    	/*
> > > > > > -	 * Lock uncore.lock, as we will do multiple timing critical raw
> > > > > > -	 * register reads, potentially with preemption disabled, so the
> > > > > > -	 * following code must not block on uncore.lock.
> > > > > > +	 * Enter vblank critical section, as we will do multiple
> > > > > > +	 * timing critical raw register reads, potentially with
> > > > > > +	 * preemption disabled, so the following code must not block.
> > > > > >    	 */
> > > > > > -	spin_lock_irqsave(&dev_priv->uncore.lock, irqflags);
> > > > > > +	local_irq_save(irqflags);
> > > > > > +	intel_vblank_section_enter(dev_priv);
> > > > > 
> > > > > Shouldn't local_irq_save go into intel_vblank_section_enter()? It seems
> > > > > all callers from both i915 and xe end up doing that anyway and naming
> > > > > "vblank_start" was presumed there would be more to the section than
> > > > > cacheline mmio bug. I mean that there is some benefit from keeping the
> > > > > readout timings tight.
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > The reason is that there is one caller that has already disabled
> > > > interrupts when this function is called (see below), so we shouldn't do
> > > > it again.
> > > 
> > > Yeah I saw that but with irqsave/restore it is safe to nest. So for me 
> > > it is more a fundamental question which I raise above.
> > 
> > Sure, it should be safe to nest, but it seemed a bit ugly to me.
> > 
> > I can change it, if you prefer, as your point seems valid, but I will
> > wait to see what Rodrigo says, since he had already given his r-b, lest
> > we start ping-ponging on this too much.
> 
> I believe we should go with this patch as is, because this brings absolutely
> no code change. Even though we believe the irqsave is a safe thing on that
> side it would be a change in behavior.
> 
> So, probably a follow-up patch to also convert the other case and moving
> everything inside the new vblank_start/end functions?

Okay, cool.  So, if someone can merge this patch once it passes CI,
I'll send a follow up patch doing as Tvrtko suggested.

--
Cheers,
Luca.