diff options
author | Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> | 2021-09-08 20:03:41 +0300 |
---|---|---|
committer | Minda Chen <minda.chen@starfivetech.com> | 2023-11-06 14:24:48 +0300 |
commit | 9fcd729a8e64bf39494915ee280349953b001f24 (patch) | |
tree | 385cd11868eac443ca0edb97825e6f69e5ada123 | |
parent | c1f00e1f03e79fe7bfffde351b2d53571ba3b9ae (diff) | |
download | linux-9fcd729a8e64bf39494915ee280349953b001f24.tar.xz |
drm/i915/gt: Use spin_lock_irq() instead of local_irq_disable() + spin_lock()
execlists_dequeue() is invoked from a function which uses
local_irq_disable() to disable interrupts so the spin_lock() behaves
like spin_lock_irq().
This breaks PREEMPT_RT because local_irq_disable() + spin_lock() is not
the same as spin_lock_irq().
execlists_dequeue_irq() and execlists_dequeue() has each one caller
only. If intel_engine_cs::active::lock is acquired and released with the
_irq suffix then it behaves almost as if execlists_dequeue() would be
invoked with disabled interrupts. The difference is the last part of the
function which is then invoked with enabled interrupts.
I can't tell if this makes a difference. From looking at it, it might
work to move the last unlock at the end of the function as I didn't find
anything that would acquire the lock again.
Reported-by: Clark Williams <williams@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Reviewed-by: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>
-rw-r--r-- | drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c | 17 |
1 files changed, 5 insertions, 12 deletions
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c index de5f9c86b9a4..dbf44f956744 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c @@ -1283,7 +1283,7 @@ static void execlists_dequeue(struct intel_engine_cs *engine) * and context switches) submission. */ - spin_lock(&sched_engine->lock); + spin_lock_irq(&sched_engine->lock); /* * If the queue is higher priority than the last @@ -1383,7 +1383,7 @@ static void execlists_dequeue(struct intel_engine_cs *engine) * Even if ELSP[1] is occupied and not worthy * of timeslices, our queue might be. */ - spin_unlock(&sched_engine->lock); + spin_unlock_irq(&sched_engine->lock); return; } } @@ -1409,7 +1409,7 @@ static void execlists_dequeue(struct intel_engine_cs *engine) if (last && !can_merge_rq(last, rq)) { spin_unlock(&ve->base.sched_engine->lock); - spin_unlock(&engine->sched_engine->lock); + spin_unlock_irq(&engine->sched_engine->lock); return; /* leave this for another sibling */ } @@ -1571,7 +1571,7 @@ done: */ sched_engine->queue_priority_hint = queue_prio(sched_engine); i915_sched_engine_reset_on_empty(sched_engine); - spin_unlock(&sched_engine->lock); + spin_unlock_irq(&sched_engine->lock); /* * We can skip poking the HW if we ended up with exactly the same set @@ -1597,13 +1597,6 @@ done: } } -static void execlists_dequeue_irq(struct intel_engine_cs *engine) -{ - local_irq_disable(); /* Suspend interrupts across request submission */ - execlists_dequeue(engine); - local_irq_enable(); /* flush irq_work (e.g. breadcrumb enabling) */ -} - static void clear_ports(struct i915_request **ports, int count) { memset_p((void **)ports, NULL, count); @@ -2427,7 +2420,7 @@ static void execlists_submission_tasklet(struct tasklet_struct *t) } if (!engine->execlists.pending[0]) { - execlists_dequeue_irq(engine); + execlists_dequeue(engine); start_timeslice(engine); } |