summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorSebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>2021-09-08 20:03:41 +0300
committerMinda Chen <minda.chen@starfivetech.com>2023-11-06 14:24:48 +0300
commit9fcd729a8e64bf39494915ee280349953b001f24 (patch)
tree385cd11868eac443ca0edb97825e6f69e5ada123
parentc1f00e1f03e79fe7bfffde351b2d53571ba3b9ae (diff)
downloadlinux-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.c17
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);
}