If we can't acquire dev->struct_mutex we need to fail runtime suspend,
at least with the current design. Currently we do that using -EAGAIN,
but that upsets the pm core, resulting in the occasional fail testcase
in our CI with the following dmesg dirt:
pci_pm_runtime_suspend(): intel_runtime_suspend+0x0/0x240 [i915] returns -11
Chris has some ideas to improve this, but for now just shut up the
error.
Cc: Paulo Zanoni <przan...@gmail.com>
Cc: Chris Wilson <ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vet...@intel.com>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c
index 5a70aca71d6b..ab8ffbc48e2d 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/i915_drv.c
@@ -1497,8 +1497,7 @@ static int intel_runtime_suspend(struct device *device)
* We could deadlock here in case another thread holding struct_mutex
* calls RPM suspend concurrently, since the RPM suspend will wait
* first for this RPM suspend to finish. In this case the concurrent
- * RPM resume will be followed by its RPM suspend counterpart. Still
- * for consistency return -EAGAIN, which will reschedule this suspend.
+ * RPM resume will be followed by its RPM suspend counterpart.
*/
if (!mutex_trylock(&dev->struct_mutex)) {
DRM_DEBUG_KMS("device lock contention, deffering suspend\n");
@@ -1508,7 +1507,8 @@ static int intel_runtime_suspend(struct device *device)
*/
pm_runtime_mark_last_busy(device);
- return -EAGAIN;
+ /* Fail silently to avoid upsetting the pm core. */
+ return 0;
}
/*
* We are safe here against re-faults, since the fault handler takes
--
2.5.1
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
