Skip to content

K
Kernel

openeuler / Kernel
1 年多 前同步成功

通知 8
Star 0
Fork 0
K
Kernel
切换分支/标签
  1. 03 12月, 2014 5 次提交
  3. 02 12月, 2014 1 次提交
    • T
      drm/i915: Don't pin LRC in GGTT when dumping in debugfs · 064ca1d2
      由 Thomas Daniel 提交于 
      LRC object does not need to be mapped into the GGTT when dumping. A side-effect
of this patch is that a compiler warning goes away (not checking return value
of i915_gem_obj_ggtt_pin).

v2: Broke out individual context dumping into a new function as the indentation
was getting a bit crazy.  Added notification of contexts with no gem object for
debugging purposes.  Removed unnecessary pin_pages and unpin_pages, replaced
with explicit get_pages for the context object as there may be no backing store
allocated at this time (Comment for get_pages says "Ensure that the associated
pages are gathered from the backing storage and pinned into our object").
Improved error checking - get_pages and get_page are checked for failure.
Signed-off-by: NThomas Daniel <thomas.daniel@intel.com>
[danvet: Align paramter continuation lines properly. Also add some
braces to the nested loops again for readability.]
Signed-off-by: NDaniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
      064ca1d2
  5. 26 11月, 2014 1 次提交
    • V
      drm/i915: Cancel vdd off work before suspend · afa4e53a
      由 Ville Syrjälä 提交于 
      Currently we just make sure vdd is off before suspending, but we don't
cancel the vdd off work. The work wil not touch vdd if
want_panel_vdd==false so in theory this is fine.

In the past that was perfectly fine since the vdd off work didn't do
anything when want_panel_vdd==false, so even if the work would have been
run during system resume before i915 has resumed, nothing would happen.

However since pps_lock() will now grab the power domain references before
it can check want_panel_vdd, we may end up toggling the power wells on/off
already before the driver has resumed. That is not really acceptable, so
cancel the vdd off work when suspending the encoder.

The problem appeared when pps_lock() was introduced in:
 commit 773538e8
 Author: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
 Date:   Thu Sep 4 14:54:56 2014 +0300

    drm/i915: Reset power sequencer pipe tracking when disp2d is off
Signed-off-by: NVille Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
Reviewed-by: NImre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: NJani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>
      afa4e53a
  7. 24 11月, 2014 1 次提交
    • V
      drm/i915: Ignore SURFLIVE and flip counter when the GPU gets reset · bdfa7542
      由 Ville Syrjälä 提交于 
      During a GPU reset we need to get pending page flip cleared out
since the ring contents are gone and flip will never complete
on its own. This used to work until the mmio vs. CS flip race
detection came about. That piece of code is looking for a
specific surface address in the SURFLIVE register, but as
a flip to that address may never happen the check may never
pass. So we should just skip the SURFLIVE and flip counter
checks when the GPU gets reset.

intel_display_handle_reset() tries to effectively complete
the flip anyway by calling .update_primary_plane(). But that
may not satisfy the conditions of the mmio vs. CS race
detection since there's no guarantee that a modeset didn't
sneak in between the GPU reset and intel_display_handle_reset().
Such a modeset will not wait for pending flips due to the ongoing GPU
reset, and then the primary plane updates performed by
intel_display_handle_reset() will already use the new surface
address, and thus the surface address the flip is waiting for
might never appear in SURFLIVE. The result is that the flip
will never complete and attempts to perform further page flips
will fail with -EBUSY.

During the GPU reset intel_crtc_has_pending_flip() will return
false regardless, so the deadlock with a modeset vs. the error
work acquiring crtc->mutex was avoided. And the reset_counter
check in intel_crtc_has_pending_flip() actually made this bug
even less severe since it allowed normal modesets to go through
even though there's a pending flip.

This is a regression introduced by me here:
 commit 75f7f3ec
 Author: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
 Date:   Tue Apr 15 21:41:34 2014 +0300

    drm/i915: Fix mmio vs. CS flip race on ILK+

Testcase: igt/kms_flip/flip-vs-panning-vs-hang
Signed-off-by: NVille Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
Reviewed-by: NChris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Reviewed-by: NDaniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: NJani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>
      bdfa7542
  9. 21 11月, 2014 6 次提交
  11. 20 11月, 2014 22 次提交
  13. 19 11月, 2014 4 次提交
    • I
      drm/i915: disable rps irqs earlier during suspend/unload · 2eb5252e
      由 Imre Deak 提交于 
      After the previous patch RPS disabling doesn't depend any more on the
first level interrupts being disabled, so we can move it everywhere
earlier. Doing so let's us think about the uninitialization steps
afterwards independently of any asynchronous RPS events that can happen
atm. It also makes the system/runtime suspend time RPS disabling more
uniform. Finally this gets rid of the WARN in
intel_suspend_gt_powersave(), which we can hit if a final RPS work runs
after we disabled the first level interrupts.

Testcase: igt/pm_rpm
Reference: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=82939Signed-off-by: NImre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: NPaulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: NDaniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
      2eb5252e
    • I
      drm/i915: sanitize rps irq disabling · d4d70aa5
      由 Imre Deak 提交于 
      When disabling the RPS interrupts there is a tricky dependency between
the thread disabling the interrupts, the RPS interrupt handler and the
corresponding RPS work. The RPS work can reenable the interrupts, so
there is no straightforward order in the disabling thread to (1) make
sure that any RPS work is flushed and to (2) disable all RPS
interrupts. Currently this is solved by masking the interrupts using two
separate mask registers (first level display IMR and PM IMR) and doing
the disabling when all first level interrupts are disabled.

This works, but the requirement to run with all first level interrupts
disabled is unnecessary making the suspend / unload time ordering of RPS
disabling wrt. other unitialization steps difficult and error prone.
Removing this restriction allows us to disable RPS early during suspend
/ unload and forget about it for the rest of the sequence. By adding a
more explicit method for avoiding the above race, it also becomes easier
to prove its correctness. Finally currently we can hit the WARN in
snb_update_pm_irq(), when a final RPS work runs with the first level
interrupts already disabled. This won't lead to any problem (due to the
separate interrupt masks), but with the change in this and the next
patch we can get rid of the WARN, while leaving it in place for other
scenarios.

To address the above points, add a new RPS interrupts_enabled flag and
use this during RPS disabling to avoid requeuing the RPS work and
reenabling of the RPS interrupts. Since the interrupt disabling happens
now in intel_suspend_gt_powersave(), we will disable RPS interrupts
explicitly during suspend (and not just through the first level mask),
but there is no problem doing so, it's also more consistent and allows
us to unify more of the RPS disabling during suspend and unload time in
the next patch.

v2/v3:
- rebase on patch "drm/i915: move rps irq disable one level up" in the
  patchset
Signed-off-by: NImre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: NPaulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: NDaniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
      d4d70aa5
    • I
      drm/i915: sanitize rps irq enabling · 3cc134e3
      由 Imre Deak 提交于 
      Atm we first enable the RPS interrupts then we clear any pending ones.
By this we could lose an interrupt arriving after we unmasked it. This
may not be a problem as the caller should handle such a race, but logic
still calls for the opposite order. Also we can delay enabling the
interrupts until after all the RPS initialization is ready with the
following order:

1. disable left-over RPS (earlier via intel_uncore_sanitize)
2. clear any pending RPS interrupts
3. initialize RPS
4. enable RPS interrupts

This also allows us to do the 2. and 4. step the same way for all
platforms, so let's follow this order to simplifying things.

Also make sure any queued interrupts are also cleared.

v2:
- rebase on the GEN9 patches where we don't support RPS yet, so we
  musn't enable RPS interrupts on it (Paulo)
v3:
- avoid enabling RPS interrupts on GEN>9 too (Paulo)
- clarify the RPS init sequence in the log message (Chris)
- add POSTING_READ to gen6_reset_rps_interrupts() (Paulo)
- WARN if any PM_IIR bits are set in gen6_enable_rps_interrupts()
  (Paulo)
Signed-off-by: NImre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: NPaulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: NDaniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
      3cc134e3
    • I
      drm/i915: move rps irq disable one level up · e534770a
      由 Imre Deak 提交于 
      We disable the RPS interrupts for all platforms at the same spot, so
move it one level up in the callstack to simplify things.

No functional change.

v2:
- rebase on the GEN9 patches where RPS isn't supported yet, so we don't
  need to disable RPS interrupts on it (Paulo)
v3:
- avoid disabling the interrupts on GEN>9 too (Paulo)
Signed-off-by: NImre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: NPaulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: NDaniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
      e534770a