On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 05:02:43PM +0200, Mika Kuoppala wrote:
> Commit 094f9a54e355 ("drm/i915: Fix __wait_seqno to use true infinite
> timeouts") added support for __wait_seqno to detect missing interrupts and
> go around them by polling. As there is also timeout detection in
> __wait_seqno, the polling and timeout detection were done with the same
> timer.
>
> When there has been missed interrupts and polling is needed, the timer is
> set to trigger in (now + 1) jiffies in future, instead of the caller
> specified timeout.
>
> Now when io_schedule() returns, we calculate the jiffies left to timeout
> using the timer expiration value. As the current jiffies is now bound to be
> always equal or greater than the expiration value, the timeout_jiffies will
> become zero or negative and we return -ETIME to caller even tho the
> timeout was never reached.
>
> Fix this by decoupling timeout calculation from timer expiration.
>
> v2: Commit message with some sense in it (Chris Wilson)
>
> v3: add parenthesis on timeout_expire calculation
>
> v4: don't read jiffies without timeout (Chris Wilson)
>
> Signed-off-by: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuopp...@intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c | 14 ++++++--------
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> index 92149bc..6d2e786 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_gem.c
> @@ -1017,7 +1017,7 @@ static int __wait_seqno(struct intel_ring_buffer *ring,
> u32 seqno,
> drm_i915_private_t *dev_priv = ring->dev->dev_private;
> struct timespec before, now;
> DEFINE_WAIT(wait);
> - long timeout_jiffies;
> + unsigned long timeout_expire;
> int ret;
>
> WARN(dev_priv->pc8.irqs_disabled, "IRQs disabled\n");
> @@ -1025,7 +1025,7 @@ static int __wait_seqno(struct intel_ring_buffer *ring,
> u32 seqno,
> if (i915_seqno_passed(ring->get_seqno(ring, true), seqno))
> return 0;
>
> - timeout_jiffies = timeout ? timespec_to_jiffies_timeout(timeout) : 1;
> + timeout_expire = timeout ? jiffies +
> timespec_to_jiffies_timeout(timeout) : 0;
>
> if (dev_priv->info->gen >= 6 && can_wait_boost(file_priv)) {
> gen6_rps_boost(dev_priv);
> @@ -1044,7 +1044,6 @@ static int __wait_seqno(struct intel_ring_buffer *ring,
> u32 seqno,
> getrawmonotonic(&before);
> for (;;) {
> struct timer_list timer;
> - unsigned long expire;
>
> prepare_to_wait(&ring->irq_queue, &wait,
> interruptible ? TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE :
> TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> @@ -1070,23 +1069,22 @@ static int __wait_seqno(struct intel_ring_buffer
> *ring, u32 seqno,
> break;
> }
>
> - if (timeout_jiffies <= 0) {
> + if (timeout && time_after_eq(jiffies, timeout_expire)) {
> ret = -ETIME;
> break;
> }
>
> timer.function = NULL;
> if (timeout || missed_irq(dev_priv, ring)) {
> + unsigned long expire;
> +
> setup_timer_on_stack(&timer, fake_irq, (unsigned
> long)current);
> - expire = jiffies + (missed_irq(dev_priv, ring) ? 1:
> timeout_jiffies);
> + expire = missed_irq(dev_priv, ring) ? jiffies + 1 :
> timeout_expire;
I guess we have very small race here if we get called w/ timeout==NULL, and
missed_irq() was true above but is no longer true here. At that point we would
set expire=0 and might end up waiting for quite a while. But that issue was
present already in the code before this patch and otherwise it all
looks good to me, so:
Reviewed-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com>
> mod_timer(&timer, expire);
> }
>
> io_schedule();
>
> - if (timeout)
> - timeout_jiffies = expire - jiffies;
> -
> if (timer.function) {
> del_singleshot_timer_sync(&timer);
> destroy_timer_on_stack(&timer);
> --
> 1.7.9.5
>
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
--
Ville Syrjälä
Intel OTC
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
