From: Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org>
To: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Cc: dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
Intel Graphics Development <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2 2/8] drm/i915: Add more control to wait_for routines
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2017 12:48:17 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAOw6vbL2Ps8r3-DFK4y5D-sCzpwbKqH=374yq1hGowN-0uagQA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <151215024280.1324.2765501954695029499@mail.alporthouse.com>
On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 12:44 PM, Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote:
> Quoting Sean Paul (2017-12-01 17:20:24)
>> /**
>> - * _wait_for - magic (register) wait macro
>> + * __wait_for - magic wait macro
>> *
>> - * Does the right thing for modeset paths when run under kdgb or similar atomic
>> - * contexts. Note that it's important that we check the condition again after
>> + * Macro to help avoid open coding check/wait/timeout patterns, will do the
>> + * right think wrt to choosing msleep vs usleep_range based on how long the wait
>> + * interval is. Note that it's important that we check the condition again after
>> * having timed out, since the timeout could be due to preemption or similar and
>> * we've never had a chance to check the condition before the timeout.
>> */
>> -#define _wait_for(COND, US, W) ({ \
>> +#define __wait_for(OP, COND, US, W) ({ \
>> unsigned long timeout__ = jiffies + usecs_to_jiffies(US) + 1; \
>> int ret__; \
>> might_sleep(); \
>> for (;;) { \
>> bool expired__ = time_after(jiffies, timeout__); \
>> + OP; \
>> if (COND) { \
>> ret__ = 0; \
>> break; \
>> @@ -62,11 +64,16 @@
>> ret__ = -ETIMEDOUT; \
>> break; \
>> } \
>> - usleep_range((W), (W) * 2); \
>> + if (W > (20 * 1000)) \
>> + msleep(W / 1000); \
>> + else \
>> + usleep_range((W), (W) * 2); \
>
> The current wait_for() is a little more complicated nowadays (variable
> W).
>
Hmm, am I based off the wrong tree? I'm using drm-intel-next.
> Are ms intervals going to be that common? Using a state-machine springs
> to mind, but you could argue that msleep() is just a yield. Using msleep
> though is going to leave D processes visible and a bump in load :|
>
Probably uncommon, but at the very least, I need one. I wouldn't feel
comfortable handling such a large wait using usleep_range.
Sean
>> } \
>> ret__; \
>> })
>>
>> +#define _wait_for(COND, US, W) __wait_for(;,(COND), US, W)
>> +
>> #define wait_for(COND, MS) _wait_for((COND), (MS) * 1000, 1000)
>>
>> /* If CONFIG_PREEMPT_COUNT is disabled, in_atomic() always reports false. */
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c
>> index b4621271e7a2..c851b0c0602d 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_uncore.c
>> @@ -1770,12 +1770,14 @@ int __intel_wait_for_register_fw(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
>> }
>>
>> /**
>> - * intel_wait_for_register - wait until register matches expected state
>> + * __intel_wait_for_register - wait until register matches expected state
>> * @dev_priv: the i915 device
>> * @reg: the register to read
>> * @mask: mask to apply to register value
>> * @value: expected value
>> - * @timeout_ms: timeout in millisecond
>> + * @fast_timeout_us: fast timeout in microsecond for atomic/tight wait
>> + * @slow_timeout_ms: slow timeout in millisecond
>> + * @out_value: optional placeholder to hold registry value
>> *
>> * This routine waits until the target register @reg contains the expected
>> * @value after applying the @mask, i.e. it waits until ::
>> @@ -1786,15 +1788,18 @@ int __intel_wait_for_register_fw(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
>> *
>> * Returns 0 if the register matches the desired condition, or -ETIMEOUT.
>> */
>> -int intel_wait_for_register(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
>> +int __intel_wait_for_register(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
>> i915_reg_t reg,
>> u32 mask,
>> u32 value,
>> - unsigned int timeout_ms)
>> + unsigned int fast_timeout_us,
>> + unsigned int slow_timeout_ms,
>> + u32 *out_value)
>> {
>> unsigned fw =
>> intel_uncore_forcewake_for_reg(dev_priv, reg, FW_REG_READ);
>> int ret;
>> + u32 reg_value;
>>
>> might_sleep();
>>
>> @@ -1803,14 +1808,18 @@ int intel_wait_for_register(struct drm_i915_private *dev_priv,
>>
>> ret = __intel_wait_for_register_fw(dev_priv,
>> reg, mask, value,
>> - 2, 0, NULL);
>> + fast_timeout_us, 0, ®_value);
>>
>> intel_uncore_forcewake_put__locked(dev_priv, fw);
>> spin_unlock_irq(&dev_priv->uncore.lock);
>>
>> if (ret)
>> - ret = wait_for((I915_READ_NOTRACE(reg) & mask) == value,
>> - timeout_ms);
>> + ret = __wait_for(reg_value = I915_READ_NOTRACE(reg),
>> + (reg_value & mask) == value,
>> + slow_timeout_ms * 1000, 1000);
>> +
>> + if (out_value)
>> + *out_value = reg_value;
>
> Looks good.
> -Chris
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-12-01 17:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-12-01 17:20 [PATCH v2 0/8] drm/i915: Implement HDCP Sean Paul
2017-12-01 17:20 ` [PATCH v2 1/8] drm: Fix link-status kerneldoc line lengths Sean Paul
2017-12-01 17:20 ` [PATCH v2 2/8] drm/i915: Add more control to wait_for routines Sean Paul
2017-12-01 17:44 ` [Intel-gfx] " Chris Wilson
2017-12-01 17:48 ` Sean Paul [this message]
[not found] ` <151215091507.4852.2176019139113860843@mail.alporthouse.com>
[not found] ` <151215105956.4852.3393236663014165115@mail.alporthouse.com>
2017-12-01 18:00 ` Sean Paul
2017-12-01 17:20 ` [PATCH v2 3/8] drm: Add Content Protection property Sean Paul
2017-12-01 17:20 ` [PATCH v2 4/8] drm: Add some HDCP related #defines Sean Paul
2017-12-01 17:20 ` [PATCH v2 5/8] drm/i915: Add HDCP framework + base implementation Sean Paul
2017-12-01 17:20 ` [PATCH v2 6/8] drm/i915: Add function to output Aksv over GMBUS Sean Paul
2017-12-01 19:06 ` Ville Syrjälä
2017-12-01 19:17 ` Sean Paul
2017-12-01 20:03 ` Ville Syrjälä
2017-12-01 17:20 ` [PATCH v2 7/8] drm/i915: Implement HDCP for HDMI Sean Paul
2017-12-01 17:20 ` [PATCH v2 8/8] drm/i915: Implement HDCP for DisplayPort Sean Paul
2017-12-01 18:47 ` [PATCH v2 0/8] drm/i915: Implement HDCP Hans Verkuil
2017-12-01 18:58 ` Sean Paul
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CAOw6vbL2Ps8r3-DFK4y5D-sCzpwbKqH=374yq1hGowN-0uagQA@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=seanpaul@chromium.org \
--cc=airlied@linux.ie \
--cc=chris@chris-wilson.co.uk \
--cc=daniel.vetter@intel.com \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rodrigo.vivi@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).