On 2021-02-09 18:43:54 [+0100], Christian König wrote:
Hi Sebastian,
Hi Christian,
to be honest I'm thinking about that for quite some time now and I don't think that this is possible without a severe rewrite of the driver.
The problem is simply that we have a lot of functions which deal with hardware handling independent of the context. But how registers are accessed needs to be different depending if your are in the interrupt handler or not.
You would need to push the information if we are coming in from the interrupt handler through a > 10 function calls.
I don't think that this is feasible nor good design.
Yeah, that is what I saw and didn't even try.
The possible backtrace (at the bottom of this email) is this a correct assumption?
Another quick question: You acked my three-patch series. I don't see it in the next tree as of today. Is there anything for me to do?
Regards, Christian.
Am 09.02.21 um 17:53 schrieb Sebastian Andrzej Siewior:
On 2021-02-09 13:50:31 [+0100], Christian König wrote:
Reviewed-by: Christian König christian.koenig@amd.com for the series.
Thank you. Any chance you could give me a hand with the remaining three users within the amdgpu driver? I don't know if the in_interrupt() check can be limited to certain callers. What I noticed while tracing v5.10 is this:
| Xorg-2257 [007] d... 57261.620043: amdgpu_device_wreg: 0x699f, 0x00001bcf, 0x00000100 | => trace_event_raw_event_amdgpu_device_wreg | => amdgpu_device_wreg.part.0 | => dce110_arm_vert_intr | => dce110_vblank_set | => dm_enable_vblank | => drm_vblank_enable | => drm_vblank_get | => drm_wait_vblank_ioctl | => drm_ioctl_kernel | => drm_ioctl | => amdgpu_drm_ioctl | => __x64_sys_ioctl | => do_syscall_64 | => entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe
I think that amdgpu_device_wreg() -> amdgpu_kiq_wreg() could be invoked. It doesn't here because amdgpu_sriov_runtime() is false. The trace says `d' which means interrupts are disabled but in_interrupt() will return false in this case (no IRQ/softirq).
Sebastian
Sebastian