diff options
| author | Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> | 2026-09-23 13:15:20 +0200 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Maarten Lankhorst <dev@lankhorst.se> | 2026-09-25 19:55:38 +0200 |
| commit | f23399dbf2d131fac6824e6ae503c2a80eaff908 (patch) | |
| tree | ad091fed5e0fb43a74ffc1cf740c234c1af69a94 /drivers/gpu/drm/i915 | |
| parent | a24f49a328477ef8520ec1d803c99adece6c6fb2 (diff) | |
| download | linux-next-f23399dbf2d131fac6824e6ae503c2a80eaff908.tar.gz linux-next-f23399dbf2d131fac6824e6ae503c2a80eaff908.zip | |
drm/i915/gt: Use spin_lock_irq() instead of local_irq_disable() + spin_lock()
execlists_dequeue() is invoked from a function which uses
local_irq_disable() to disable interrupts so the spin_lock() behaves
like spin_lock_irq().
This breaks PREEMPT_RT because local_irq_disable() + spin_lock() is not
the same as spin_lock_irq().
execlists_dequeue_irq() and execlists_dequeue() has each one caller
only. If intel_engine_cs::active::lock is acquired and released with the
_irq suffix then it behaves almost as if execlists_dequeue() would be
invoked with disabled interrupts. The difference is the last part of the
function which is then invoked with enabled interrupts.
I can't tell if this makes a difference. From looking at it, it might
work to move the last unlock at the end of the function as I didn't find
anything that would acquire the lock again.
Reported-by: Clark Williams <williams@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Reviewed-by: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>
Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20260923111518.310430-9-dev@lankhorst.se
Signed-off-by: Maarten Lankhorst <dev@lankhorst.se>
Diffstat (limited to 'drivers/gpu/drm/i915')
| -rw-r--r-- | drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c | 17 |
1 files changed, 5 insertions, 12 deletions
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c index e693b0c9d2a3..841f71932675 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gt/intel_execlists_submission.c @@ -1300,7 +1300,7 @@ static void execlists_dequeue(struct intel_engine_cs *engine) * and context switches) submission. */ - spin_lock(&sched_engine->lock); + spin_lock_irq(&sched_engine->lock); /* * If the queue is higher priority than the last @@ -1400,7 +1400,7 @@ static void execlists_dequeue(struct intel_engine_cs *engine) * Even if ELSP[1] is occupied and not worthy * of timeslices, our queue might be. */ - spin_unlock(&sched_engine->lock); + spin_unlock_irq(&sched_engine->lock); return; } } @@ -1426,7 +1426,7 @@ static void execlists_dequeue(struct intel_engine_cs *engine) if (last && !can_merge_rq(last, rq)) { spin_unlock(&ve->base.sched_engine->lock); - spin_unlock(&engine->sched_engine->lock); + spin_unlock_irq(&engine->sched_engine->lock); return; /* leave this for another sibling */ } @@ -1588,7 +1588,7 @@ done: */ sched_engine->queue_priority_hint = queue_prio(sched_engine); i915_sched_engine_reset_on_empty(sched_engine); - spin_unlock(&sched_engine->lock); + spin_unlock_irq(&sched_engine->lock); /* * We can skip poking the HW if we ended up with exactly the same set @@ -1614,13 +1614,6 @@ done: } } -static void execlists_dequeue_irq(struct intel_engine_cs *engine) -{ - local_irq_disable(); /* Suspend interrupts across request submission */ - execlists_dequeue(engine); - local_irq_enable(); /* flush irq_work (e.g. breadcrumb enabling) */ -} - static void clear_ports(struct i915_request **ports, int count) { memset_p((void **)ports, NULL, count); @@ -2475,7 +2468,7 @@ static void execlists_submission_tasklet(struct tasklet_struct *t) } if (!engine->execlists.pending[0]) { - execlists_dequeue_irq(engine); + execlists_dequeue(engine); start_timeslice(engine); } |
