On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 05:23:35PM +0200, Michal Wajdeczko wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 04:02:06PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > submit_request() is called from an atomic context, it's not allowed to
> > sleep. We have to be careful in our parameters to
> > intel_uncore_wait_for_register() to limit ourselves to the atomic wait
> > loop and not incur the wrath of our warnings.
> > 
> > Fixes: 6976e74b5fa1 ("drm/i915: Don't allow overuse of 
> > __intel_wait_for_register_fw()")
> > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <[email protected]>
> > Cc: Michal Wajdeczko <[email protected]>
> > Cc: Joonas Lahtinen <[email protected]>
> > Link: 
> > http://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/[email protected]
> > ---
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c | 10 +++++-----
> >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c 
> > b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c
> > index c98acc27279a..331da59a1eb5 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_ringbuffer.c
> > @@ -1729,11 +1729,11 @@ static void gen6_bsd_submit_request(struct 
> > drm_i915_gem_request *request)
> >     I915_WRITE64_FW(GEN6_BSD_RNCID, 0x0);
> >  
> >     /* Wait for the ring not to be idle, i.e. for it to wake up. */
> > -   if (intel_wait_for_register_fw(dev_priv,
> > -                                  GEN6_BSD_SLEEP_PSMI_CONTROL,
> > -                                  GEN6_BSD_SLEEP_INDICATOR,
> > -                                  0,
> > -                                  50))
> > +   if (__intel_wait_for_register_fw(dev_priv,
> > +                                    GEN6_BSD_SLEEP_PSMI_CONTROL,
> > +                                    GEN6_BSD_SLEEP_INDICATOR,
> > +                                    0,
> > +                                    1000, 0, NULL))
> 
> Hmm, it's now 50x smaller timeout, but let's hope it's still enough, hence

We have already told the device to leave rc6 (we hold forcewake) so this
should be a formality. For the last few months we have been running with
a sleep after 2us, and have never seen the warning about sleeping from
here in CI -- so I think a 1ms (i.e. 500x longer) timeout is safe.
-Chris

-- 
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Reply via email to