diff mbox

[2/2] drm/i915: fix up _wait_for macro

Message ID 1364425405-1200-2-git-send-email-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch (mailing list archive)
State New, archived
Headers show

Commit Message

Daniel Vetter March 27, 2013, 11:03 p.m. UTC
As Thomas Gleixner spotted, it's rather horrible racy:
- We can miss almost a full tick, so need to compensate by 1 jiffy.
- We need to re-check the condition when having timed-out, since a
  the last check could have been before the timeout expired. E.g. when
  we've been preempted or a long irq happened.

Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Reported-by: Jack Winter <jbh@alchemy.lu>
Cc: Jack Winter <jbh@alchemy.lu>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
---
 drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h | 13 +++++++++++--
 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

Comments

Ville Syrjälä March 28, 2013, 11 a.m. UTC | #1
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 12:03:25AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> As Thomas Gleixner spotted, it's rather horrible racy:
> - We can miss almost a full tick, so need to compensate by 1 jiffy.

I have a feeling this is a rather common pattern, so I wonder
if [mu]secs_to_jiffies() should do the +1 already for everyone.
Or maybe there should be some other macros for specifying
timeouts that would do the +1.

> - We need to re-check the condition when having timed-out, since a
>   the last check could have been before the timeout expired. E.g. when
>   we've been preempted or a long irq happened.
> 
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> Reported-by: Jack Winter <jbh@alchemy.lu>
> Cc: Jack Winter <jbh@alchemy.lu>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>

Reviewed-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>

> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h | 13 +++++++++++--
>  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
> index c8c1979..9dcae4e 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
> @@ -33,12 +33,21 @@
>  #include <drm/drm_fb_helper.h>
>  #include <drm/drm_dp_helper.h>
>  
> +/**
> + * _wait_for - magic (register) 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
> + * 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, MS, W) ({ \
> -	unsigned long timeout__ = jiffies + msecs_to_jiffies(MS);	\
> +	unsigned long timeout__ = jiffies + msecs_to_jiffies(MS) + 1;	\
>  	int ret__ = 0;							\
>  	while (!(COND)) {						\
>  		if (time_after(jiffies, timeout__)) {			\
> -			ret__ = -ETIMEDOUT;				\
> +			if (!(COND))					\
> +				ret__ = -ETIMEDOUT;			\
>  			break;						\
>  		}							\
>  		if (W && drm_can_sleep())  {				\
> -- 
> 1.7.11.7
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
Daniel Vetter March 28, 2013, 3:41 p.m. UTC | #2
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 01:00:56PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 12:03:25AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > As Thomas Gleixner spotted, it's rather horrible racy:
> > - We can miss almost a full tick, so need to compensate by 1 jiffy.
> 
> I have a feeling this is a rather common pattern, so I wonder
> if [mu]secs_to_jiffies() should do the +1 already for everyone.
> Or maybe there should be some other macros for specifying
> timeouts that would do the +1.
> 
> > - We need to re-check the condition when having timed-out, since a
> >   the last check could have been before the timeout expired. E.g. when
> >   we've been preempted or a long irq happened.
> > 
> > Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> > Reported-by: Jack Winter <jbh@alchemy.lu>
> > Cc: Jack Winter <jbh@alchemy.lu>
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
> 
> Reviewed-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>

Merged both patches, thanks for the review.
-Daniel

> 
> > ---
> >  drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h | 13 +++++++++++--
> >  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
> > index c8c1979..9dcae4e 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
> > @@ -33,12 +33,21 @@
> >  #include <drm/drm_fb_helper.h>
> >  #include <drm/drm_dp_helper.h>
> >  
> > +/**
> > + * _wait_for - magic (register) 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
> > + * 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, MS, W) ({ \
> > -	unsigned long timeout__ = jiffies + msecs_to_jiffies(MS);	\
> > +	unsigned long timeout__ = jiffies + msecs_to_jiffies(MS) + 1;	\
> >  	int ret__ = 0;							\
> >  	while (!(COND)) {						\
> >  		if (time_after(jiffies, timeout__)) {			\
> > -			ret__ = -ETIMEDOUT;				\
> > +			if (!(COND))					\
> > +				ret__ = -ETIMEDOUT;			\
> >  			break;						\
> >  		}							\
> >  		if (W && drm_can_sleep())  {				\
> > -- 
> > 1.7.11.7
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Intel-gfx mailing list
> > Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
> 
> -- 
> Ville Syrjälä
> Intel OTC
diff mbox

Patch

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
index c8c1979..9dcae4e 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/intel_drv.h
@@ -33,12 +33,21 @@ 
 #include <drm/drm_fb_helper.h>
 #include <drm/drm_dp_helper.h>
 
+/**
+ * _wait_for - magic (register) 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
+ * 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, MS, W) ({ \
-	unsigned long timeout__ = jiffies + msecs_to_jiffies(MS);	\
+	unsigned long timeout__ = jiffies + msecs_to_jiffies(MS) + 1;	\
 	int ret__ = 0;							\
 	while (!(COND)) {						\
 		if (time_after(jiffies, timeout__)) {			\
-			ret__ = -ETIMEDOUT;				\
+			if (!(COND))					\
+				ret__ = -ETIMEDOUT;			\
 			break;						\
 		}							\
 		if (W && drm_can_sleep())  {				\