Re: [Poke: Tejun] Re: [RFC v3 03/11] drm/vblank: Add vblank works

From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: "Lyude Paul" <lyude@redhat.com>,
	dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
	"Ville Syrjälä" <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>,
	"Maarten Lankhorst" <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>,
	"Maxime Ripard" <mripard@kernel.org>,
	"Thomas Zimmermann" <tzimmermann@suse.de>,
	"David Airlie" <airlied@linux.ie>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Poke: Tejun] Re: [RFC v3 03/11] drm/vblank: Add vblank works
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 12:22:38 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200422162238.GC5462@mtj.thefacebook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200421123459.GY3456981@phenom.ffwll.local>

Hello,

On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 02:34:59PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > > Also, of course, let me know if yu're not happy with the
> > > __kthread_queue_work() changes/kthread_worker usage in drm_vblank_work as well
> > 
> > Just glanced over it and I still wonder whether it needs to be that tightly
> > integrated, but we can look into that once we settle on whether this is the
> > right direction.
> 
> I don't think we absolutely have to do this, simply means some nested
> irq-safe spinlock. One in vblank_work, other in kthread_worker. Since the
> delayed work doesn't do that I think it'd be nice if the drm_vblank
> (instead of timer) delayed work could use the same pattern.

I'd prefer if they were two separate locks unless that makes practical
difference, but if it does, please go ahead.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun