Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v16 6/7] drm/i915: Protect intel_dbuf_slices_update with mutex

From: "Ville Syrjälä" <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
To: Matt Roper <matthew.d.roper@intel.com>
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v16 6/7] drm/i915: Protect intel_dbuf_slices_update with mutex
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2020 17:22:04 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200131152204.GT13686@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200128233311.GH22783@mdroper-desk1.amr.corp.intel.com>

On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 03:33:11PM -0800, Matt Roper wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 10:44:55AM +0200, Stanislav Lisovskiy wrote:
> > Now using power_domain mutex to protect from race condition, which
> > can occur because intel_dbuf_slices_update might be running in
> > parallel to gen9_dc_off_power_well_enable being called from
> > intel_dp_detect for instance, which causes assertion triggered by
> > race condition, as gen9_assert_dbuf_enabled might preempt this
> > when registers were already updated, while dev_priv was not.
> 
> I may be overlooking something, but I think your next patch already
> takes care of this by ensuring we only do dbuf updates during modesets.
> We already had POWER_DOMAIN_MODESET in our various DC_OFF_POWER_DOMAINS
> definitions which would ensure that the "DC off" power well is enabled
> (and DC states themselves are disabled) for the entire duration of the
> modeset process.

Hmm. That's assuming we only do the dbuf assert from the dc off
power well hook. Can't remember if that's the case. If that's not
the only place then we probably miss the lock somewhere else too.

> 
> If we need this, I'm not sure whether it's a good idea to use
> power_domains->lock rather than a new, dedicated lock.  Anything that
> touches power domains in any manner grabs this lock, even though we only
> really care about it for stopping races with the specific "DC off" power
> well.

Separate lock feels a bit overkill to me for something small
like this.

> 
> Also, if we bisect to the point right before these last two patches,
> don't we have a problem since there's a point in the git history where
> we potentially face a race?

Yeah should be earlier in the series I guess. If we need it at all,
which as you point out maybe we don't with the state->modeset checks.
Though maybe we want to get rid of that state->modeset dependency.
I *think* we should start using the global state stuff for dbuf
management, but haven't really looked at the details to figure out
how to organize it in the end. So at that point we may not anymore
be holding the dc off reference (although one might argue that we
should always hold that for dbuf programming so the "wait for it
to enable" thing can't be perturbed by dc transitions).

Anyways for now this seems fine by me
Reviewed-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>

> 
> 
> Matt
> 
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Stanislav Lisovskiy <stanislav.lisovskiy@intel.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_power.c | 12 ++++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_power.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_power.c
> > index 96b38252578b..99ddc21e004c 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_power.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_display_power.c
> > @@ -4404,12 +4404,22 @@ void icl_dbuf_slices_update(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> >  {
> >  	int i;
> >  	int max_slices = INTEL_INFO(dev_priv)->num_supported_dbuf_slices;
> > +	struct i915_power_domains *power_domains = &dev_priv->power_domains;
> >  
> >  	WARN(hweight8(req_slices) > max_slices,
> >  	     "Invalid number of dbuf slices requested\n");
> >  
> >  	DRM_DEBUG_KMS("Updating dbuf slices to 0x%x\n", req_slices);
> >  
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Might be running this in parallel to gen9_dc_off_power_well_enable
> > +	 * being called from intel_dp_detect for instance,
> > +	 * which causes assertion triggered by race condition,
> > +	 * as gen9_assert_dbuf_enabled might preempt this when registers
> > +	 * were already updated, while dev_priv was not.
> > +	 */
> > +	mutex_lock(&power_domains->lock);
> > +
> >  	for (i = 0; i < max_slices; i++) {
> >  		intel_dbuf_slice_set(dev_priv,
> >  				     _DBUF_CTL_S(i),
> > @@ -4417,6 +4427,8 @@ void icl_dbuf_slices_update(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
> >  	}
> >  
> >  	dev_priv->enabled_dbuf_slices_mask = req_slices;
> > +
> > +	mutex_unlock(&power_domains->lock);
> >  }
> >  
> >  static void icl_dbuf_enable(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv)
> > -- 
> > 2.24.1.485.gad05a3d8e5
> > 
> 
> -- 
> Matt Roper
> Graphics Software Engineer
> VTT-OSGC Platform Enablement
> Intel Corporation
> (916) 356-2795

-- 
Ville Syrjälä
Intel
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx