lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [May]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 05/15] drm/panfrost: use spinlock instead of atomic
Hi Robin,

On Fri, 29 May 2020 at 14:20, Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com> wrote:
>
> On 2020-05-10 17:55, Clément Péron wrote:
> > Convert busy_count to a simple int protected by spinlock.
>
> A little more reasoning might be nice.

I have follow the modification requested for lima devfreq and clearly
don't have any argument to switch to spinlock.

The Lima Maintainer asked to change witht the following reason :
"Better make this count a normal int which is also protected by the spinlock,
because current implementation can't protect atomic ops for state change
and busy idle check and we are using spinlock already"

>
> > Signed-off-by: Clément Péron <peron.clem@gmail.com>
> > ---
> [...]
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_devfreq.h b/drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_devfreq.h
> > index 0697f8d5aa34..e6629900a618 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_devfreq.h
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/panfrost/panfrost_devfreq.h
> > @@ -4,6 +4,7 @@
> > #ifndef __PANFROST_DEVFREQ_H__
> > #define __PANFROST_DEVFREQ_H__
> >
> > +#include <linux/spinlock.h>
> > #include <linux/ktime.h>
> >
> > struct devfreq;
> > @@ -14,10 +15,17 @@ struct panfrost_device;
> > struct panfrost_devfreq {
> > struct devfreq *devfreq;
> > struct thermal_cooling_device *cooling;
> > +
> > ktime_t busy_time;
> > ktime_t idle_time;
> > ktime_t time_last_update;
> > - atomic_t busy_count;
> > + int busy_count;
> > + /*
> > + * Protect busy_time, idle_time, time_last_update and busy_count
> > + * because these can be updated concurrently, for example by the GP
> > + * and PP interrupts.
> > + */
>
> Nit: this comment is clearly wrong, since we only have Job, GPU and MMU
> interrupts here. I guess if there is a race it would be between
> submission/completion/timeout on different job slots.

It's copy/paste from lima I will update it,

>
> Given that, should this actually be considered a fix for 9e62b885f715
> ("drm/panfrost: Simplify devfreq utilisation tracking")?

I can't say if it can be considered as a fix, I didn't see any
improvement on my board before and after this patch.
I'm still facing some issue and didn't have time to fully investigate it.

Thanks for you review,


>
> Robin.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-05-29 14:36    [W:0.064 / U:0.784 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site